View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Search Committee Members' Perspectives on Diversity Statements in STEM Faculty Job Applications

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Search Committee Members' Perspectives on Diversity Statements in STEM Faculty Job Applications
Language: English
Authors: Torrie A. Cropps (ORCID 0000-0002-2974-8798), Jue Wu (ORCID 0000-0002-2931-7146), Yvette E. Pearson (ORCID 0000-0002-8781-7085), Samara R. Boyle (ORCID 0000-0002-8555-9799), Canek M. L. Phillips (ORCID 0000-0002-6571-2733), Stephen P. Mattingly (ORCID 0000-0001-6515-6813), Lisa J. Borello (ORCID 0009-0005-9642-6851)
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. 2025 (212):5-16.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF), Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
Contract Number: 1916093
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Faculty, Search Committees (Personnel), Job Applicants, Position Papers, STEM Education, Incidence, Evaluation Methods, Diversity (Faculty)
DOI: 10.1002/he.20529
ISSN: 0271-0560
1536-0741
Abstract: Faculty search committees use diversity statements as a component of job applications in an effort to increase the representation of racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) faculty members and to assess if prospective faculty members can contribute to an institutional culture that is respectful and supportive of all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of identity. In recent years, diversity statements have been politicized as loyalty oaths and some state laws have banned their use at public institutions of higher education, although some public institutions in other states and private institutions still require applicants to submit them. This paper presents an explanatory mixed methods study to answer the questions: (1) How prevalent are diversity statement requirements for STEM faculty hiring? (2) Do diversity statement requirements differ by institution type? (3) To what extent do universities equip search committees to evaluate diversity statements? We deployed a nationwide survey to STEM faculty members and administrators experienced in faculty search processes and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of respondents. Our results produced recommendations for both the effective use of diversity statements, and for academic leaders in states where they are not allowed, suggestions for evaluating faculty applicants' ability to effectively collaborate with people and partners who have different backgrounds and perspectives.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1495758
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGvRQglbNjXazseoc-kQszGAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPdbrNgA7-6Sq3rAqAIBEICBmvQWrMW6KZUopNCIYawyrXEVW65ZKcgxqRXuIkXcTq89L0Jq7zr8Fu8PnQfMbFpTY7rKV37kvu42Pwt3MTLUBw8HrdcwaquoeOcrCGUd4vh62wUuI2tihLSVL0KmQF5YSGS-BK6zTvDGNok4AZIq6qO5-ouBwjn7-RU6BPlHbCAn9xamlE_tBzniSM6l6l6c-DYjiZeTQexQjQc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191257113;ndh01dec.25;2026Feb03.01:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191257113-1">Search Committee Members' Perspectives on Diversity Statements in STEM Faculty Job Applications </title> <p>Faculty search committees use diversity statements as a component of job applications in an effort to increase the representation of racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) faculty members and to assess if prospective faculty members can contribute to an institutional culture that is respectful and supportive of all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of identity. In recent years, diversity statements have been politicized as loyalty oaths and some state laws have banned their use at public institutions of higher education, although some public institutions in other states and private institutions still require applicants to submit them. This paper presents an explanatory mixed methods study to answer the questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) How prevalent are diversity statement requirements for STEM faculty hiring? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) Do diversity statement requirements differ by institution type? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) To what extent do universities equip search committees to evaluate diversity statements? We deployed a nationwide survey to STEM faculty members and administrators experienced in faculty search processes and conducted follow‐up interviews with a subset of respondents. Our results produced recommendations for both the effective use of diversity statements, and for academic leaders in states where they are not allowed, suggestions for evaluating faculty applicants' ability to effectively collaborate with people and partners who have different backgrounds and perspectives.</p> <p>Keywords: diversity; diversity statements; equity; faculty hiring; inclusion in STEM education; search committee</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) groups—Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino/a/e, and Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Native Pacific Islander—remain underrepresented in the STEM professoriate. In 2018, Black and Latino/a/e faculty comprised 2.4% and 3.8% of tenured/tenure track engineering faculty, respectively (Roy [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]). Discriminatory practices in recruitment and hiring contribute to less diverse faculty ranks. In order to increase diversity among faculty, REM faculty need to be hired at an enhanced rate (Bensimon [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]); however, higher education has not developed clear guidance to accomplish this. Though the practice has come under fire from state legislatures in recent years, one method institutions employ to address this challenge is requiring diversity statements as part of faculty job applications. The expectation is that this requirement signals a commitment to diversity that will attract more diverse applicants.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-3">Summary</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Fewer than one third of survey respondents stated their STEM department required diversity statements when hiring faculty. Of those, nearly two thirds reported they received no guidance in evaluating the statements.</item> <p></p> <item> Carnegie R1 and R2 universities were less likely to require diversity statements and more likely to provide evaluation guidance than non‐R1/R2 institutions.</item> <p></p> <item> For institutions that can—and choose to—use diversity statements as part of faculty application packages, clear definitions and guidance for applicants and evaluators would eliminate guesswork. Quality rubrics would provide some level of consistency in evaluating the statements.</item> <p></p> <item> Part of evaluating merit is understanding how/if faculty applicants can teach, advise, and mentor students from different backgrounds and identities and collaborate effectively with colleagues and partners to advance research and service. This can be assessed in cover letters, teaching statements, research statements, and curriculum vitae without using diversity statements.</item> </ulist> <p>This study explores the ways and extent that diversity statements are used in evaluating applicants for STEM faculty positions provides recommendations for institutional leaders to enact in faculty searches. The research questions that guide this study are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) How prevalent are diversity statement requirements for STEM faculty hiring? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) Do diversity statement requirements differ by institution type? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>) To what extent do universities equip search committees to evaluate diversity statements?</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-4">Impacts of Anti‐Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policies on Faculty Hiring</hd> <p>Institutional leaders face the dual challenge diversifying their faculty ranks in a higher education landscape that is politicized and fraught with contradictions. For example, many institutions have adopted "race‐neutral" methods to ensure fairness such as evaluating applicants based on their journal publications or level of external funding (Sensoy and Diangelo [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]). However, these evaluations are biased because they only take into account an idealized vision of the professoriate, and not the reality of invisible labor many women applicants and applicants of color experience that is not expected of their white male counterparts (Reid [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]; Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]; Turner et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]), highlighting the way objectivity can perpetuate the status quo. Further, many public institutions of higher education in the United States have a goal of increasing the hiring and retention of REM faculty members, while at the same time, many states have legislated mandates to discontinue practices they deem unfair in the hiring process, including the requirement of diversity statements.</p> <p>At the time of this writing 85 anti‐DEI bills have been introduced in 28 states across the United States; 14 have been enacted as laws (Chronicle of Higher Education [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]), including Texas' Senate Bill 17 (SB17). Like laws in other states, SB17 prohibits diversity statements; however, there are exceptions for attorney‐developed trainings (such as search committee trainings) and resources that address topics such as discrimination, harassment, and affirmative action plans (required by universities with federal contracts) for compliance purposes (Texas Legislature [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-5">Search Committees</hd> <p>Search committees serve as one of the gatekeepers determining who can and cannot enter the faculty ranks. Their decisions not only affect individuals' professional futures, but also the future of the demographic composition of a department, college, and discipline. Researchers (Bhalla [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; Boyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; O'Meara et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]; Orupabo and Mangset [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]; Schmaling et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]; Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]; Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]) discussed strategies for search committees to create a more equitable recruitment, evaluation, and hiring process to diversify faculty ranks. For example, Sensoy and DiAngelo ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]) identified inequities in common hiring practices that uphold white supremacy and impede the hiring of diverse faculty (e.g., presumption of race neutrality, using white/Western standards for application evaluation).</p> <p>Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]) found that search committee members' personal identities influenced their evaluation of candidates. Kazmi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]) found a significant improvement in the number of applications received from REM groups when a search committee chair holds an REM identity. Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]) also found that search committees rated DEI‐related qualifications significantly less important than non‐DEI related qualifications (e.g., inclusive teaching vs. excellent teaching) for both tenure track and non‐tenure track faculty hiring. Orupabo and Mangset's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]) qualitative study on applicant evaluation found that despite evaluators' concerns regarding diversity during the first stages of the recruitment process, they still used narrow criteria to define quality in the ranking and selection process (e.g., prioritizing journal publications) that excluded diverse applicants and favored majority applicants at crucial points in the process.</p> <p>Boyle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]) evaluated intentionality toward diversity and inclusion in STEM faculty job announcements. They found intentionality varied significantly across job announcements; some did not reference diversity beyond the equal opportunity statement, others explicitly addressed diversity, and some required a standalone diversity statement submitted with application materials. Collectively, research overwhelmingly indicates that intentionality and equity must be embedded throughout the entire recruitment, evaluation, and hiring process to effect change.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-6">Diversity Statements</hd> <p>Over the past two decades, diversity statements became more popular components of faculty job applications, but they remain rare in comparison to other documents such as cover letters, research statements, teaching statements, and curriculum vitae (Turner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]). A report from the American Enterprise Institute (Paul and Maranto [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]), showed out of 999 postdoctoral, adjunct, and full‐time faculty job announcements, 19% required a diversity statement submitted with application materials. Additionally, they found that about 24%, 18%, and 17% of social science, STEM, and other disciplines, respectively, required diversity statements.</p> <p>Currently, no universal format or focus of a diversity statement exists. Consequently, applicants may be asked to address a range of experiences such as working with students from diverse backgrounds, how they incorporate diversity into their courses, how they contribute to diversity work within their professional and/or community service, how they incorporate diversity into their research, and/or how their personal backgrounds have prepared them to work in diverse spaces (Bombaci and Pejchar [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]; Schmaling et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]). Additionally, because definitions of diversity differ, requests for diversity statements and the resultant submissions can be vague.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-7">Advantages of Diversity Statements</hd> <p>Many institutions reported success in response to their requests for faculty applicants to submit a diversity statement. For example, in 2016 Boston College and University of California, Riverside both saw significant increases in new faculty hires from underrepresented groups (Flaherty [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]). Similarly, Emory University more than tripled their proportion of faculty hires from underrepresented groups in three years (Freeman [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]). They required applicants to submit a diversity statement to assess their experience with and vision for mentoring and advising REM students. If applicants submitted a compelling diversity statement, the committee then reviewed applicants' remaining application materials.</p> <p>The literature points to several advantages of diversity statements. First, diversity statements may help departments and institutions to recognize invisible forms of labor that many applicants of color participate in but may not be listed on a CV or cover letter (Bhalla [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). For example, many REM applicants may have mentored REM students outside of formal mentoring programs and would not have this activity listed on their CV. Some applicants and institutions may see the request for an applicant's diversity statement as a reflection of the department's or institution's commitment to inclusion and that supporting efforts that advance diversity on campus is a shared responsibility (Bombaci and Pejchar [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Schmaling et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]). This messaging may help to attract a more diverse pool of applicants.</p> <p>Second, a diversity statement can help the search committee identify candidates who may be interested in supporting and advancing diversity and inclusion efforts within the department. Namely, these applicants may help contribute to social justice and positive departmental change that would benefit students, faculty, and staff (Bombaci and Pejchar [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]; Turner et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, a request for a diversity statement may force applicants who have never been required to consider diversity issues within their teaching, research, and service to plan for advancing diversity efforts to support the institution's and/or department's mission. Finally, some search committees may feel diversity statements provide a tangible way to make sure diversity is not an afterthought in the search process (University of Delaware [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-8">Disadvantages of Diversity Statements</hd> <p>Despite the advantages, some also reported disadvantages related to diversity statements. First, some faculty applicants consider diversity statements to be nothing more than institutional lip service. Like other diversity efforts, many feel diversity statements are ineffective, counterproductive, and do not address the core issues in hiring inequities (al‐Gharbi [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]; Bombaci and Pejchar [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, required diversity statements may discourage some candidates from applying (University of Delaware [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]). For example, potential REM applicants who do not prioritize DEI in their work may not apply (Bombaci and Pejchar [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, international candidates may not have a solid understanding of diversity issues in the US context (University of Delaware [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). Candidates who hail from a country where most of its citizens are Black or where they do not experience diversity issues in the same way as in the United States may not be comfortable addressing how they would advance diversity.</p> <p>Fourth, because diversity statements may reveal a candidate's social identity(ies), candidates may open themselves up to bias in the search process. Research (Braileanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]; Dovidio and Gaertner [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]; O'Meara et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]; Schmaling et al.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]; Sensoy and DiAngelo [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>]) indicates that REM applicants are judged more harshly than white male applicants. In fact, anonymized review reduces bias in the hiring process (Blair‐Loy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]; Braileanu et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]; Goldin and Rouse [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fifth, search committees may not adequately use and evaluate diversity statements (Bhalla [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; Schmaling et al.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]; University of Delaware [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]). Search committee members cannot effectively evaluate diversity statements if they have not decided together what makes a good diversity statement and how to evaluate it.</p> <p>Finally, given many public institutions of higher education are in states that have enacted laws prohibiting what they define as DEI or DEI‐related activities (Charles [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]), leaders in those institutions face limitations in their ability to use diversity statements in job applications. Those who are committed to ensuring their campus is a welcoming and supportive environment for all faculty, staff, and students to work, learn, and live must identify other strategies for evaluating prospective faculty members' potential to contribute to a healthy campus culture.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-9">Methods</hd> <p>This study is derived from a larger two‐phase explanatory sequential mixed methods study examining the factors current faculty members and administrators who have experience on search committees consider important when hiring new STEM faculty. During the first phase, we deployed a nationwide survey; participants answered a series of multiple choice, short answer, and ranked preference questions regarding the comparative importance of a variety of potential applicant characteristics and answered questions about potential interventions—including applicant diversity statements—intended to assess their role in faculty hiring. For the second phase, we invited survey participants who indicated interest in answering follow‐up questions to participate in individual interviews, during which we examined the quantitative findings more deeply.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-10">Participants and Data Collection</hd> <p>Survey participants were recruited using a combination of purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. To be eligible for participation, respondents had to be at least 18 years old, employed as a faculty member or administrator in a STEM discipline, and have experience on faculty search committees. Recruitment emails were sent using organizational listservs (e.g., American Society for Engineering Education, American Association for the Advancement of Science) and through our personal networks. A total of 216 US STEM academics completed the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-11">Nationwide Survey</hd> <p>We focused on survey questions pertaining to diversity statements in this study. Specifically, we asked whether participants' departments require applicants to submit diversity statements as part of their application packages. If they answered yes, we asked follow‐up questions about whether their institution, college/school, or department provided guidance on evaluating applicants' diversity statements, as well as the importance of a strong diversity statement to their positive evaluation of faculty applications and to their colleagues. We also asked participants to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements on a 5‐point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Diversity statements should be required by all institutions regardless of student demographics.</item> <p></p> <item> Diversity statements should be required only by institutions that serve a racially, ethnically, culturally, and otherwise diverse student body.</item> <p></p> <item> Diversity statements should not be required by any institutions.</item> <p></p> <item> Diversity statements should not be required for positions where research in a technical field is the primary responsibility of the position.</item> </ulist> <p>We only included participants who answered questions about diversity statements and provided information about their currently employed institutions, which we used to determine institution type (i.e., Carnegie Classification and minority‐serving institution (MSI) status). This selection resulted in a sample of 151 participants for phase 1, the quantitative portion of this study. Of the 151 respondents, 51% were women (<emph>n</emph> = 78), 45% were men (<emph>n</emph> = 70), 1% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) indicated a gender identity not listed, and 3% (<emph>n</emph> = 5) preferred not to answer. In terms of race/ethnicity, 34% (<emph>n</emph> = 51) were from REM identities. Regarding employment, 55% (<emph>n</emph> = 83) of respondents were employed at non‐Minority Serving Institutions, 16% (<emph>n</emph> = 24) at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 22% (<emph>n</emph> = 33) at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and 7% (<emph>n</emph> = 11) at other MSIs.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-12">Interviews</hd> <p>Twenty‐five US academics who completed the survey volunteered to participate in interviews. Of the interview participants, 76% (<emph>n</emph> = 19) were White, 8% (<emph>n</emph> = 2) were Latino/a/e, 7% (<emph>n</emph> = 2) were Black, 4% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) were White/Latino/a/e, and 4% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) were Asian. Most (56%, <emph>n</emph> = 14) were men and 44% (<emph>n</emph> = 11) were women. Respondents could select all applicable social identities. Regarding the discipline of participants' primary appointments, 28% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) were in engineering, 20% (<emph>n</emph> = 5) were in a physical science, 24% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) were in a life science, 12% (<emph>n</emph> = 3) were in mathematics, 12% (<emph>n</emph> = 3) were in discipline‐based education, and 4% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) were in computer science. Further information regarding participants' demographics and institutional information can be found in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic characteristics of interview participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Pseudonym</th><th>Discipline</th><th>Position</th><th>Institution type</th><th>Carnegie classification</th><th>Race/Ethnicity</th><th>Gender</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ashley</td><td>Agricultural education</td><td>Assistant Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Brandon</td><td>Mathematical sciences</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Carl</td><td>Biology</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Dave</td><td>Technology</td><td>Dean</td><td>PBI</td><td>Associate's<ext-link /><sup>a</sup></td><td>Black</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Harry</td><td>Life sciences</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>e</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Helen</td><td>Biology</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Baccalaureate<ext-link /><sup>b</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Javier</td><td>Physical science</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Baccalaureate<ext-link /><sup>b</sup></td><td>Hispanic/Not listed</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Jeffrey</td><td>Physical science</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Associate's<ext-link /><sup>a</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Juan</td><td>Engineering</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>Hispanic/White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Landry</td><td>Civil engineering</td><td>Dean</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Lisa</td><td>Engineering</td><td>Director</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Maria</td><td>Chemical engineering</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Matteo</td><td>Mathematical science</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>d</sup></td><td>Hispanic/Not listed</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Nicole</td><td>Electrical/Computer engineering</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>d</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Pam</td><td>Engineering education</td><td>Assistant Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>e</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Phil</td><td>Physics</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Associate's<ext-link /><sup>a</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Ryan</td><td>Animal sciences</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Shannon</td><td>Biology</td><td>Associate Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Sierra</td><td>Physical science</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Baccalaureate<ext-link /><sup>b</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Tanya</td><td>Physical science</td><td>Associate Professor</td><td>PBI</td><td>Master's<sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Taylor</td><td>Mathematical sciences</td><td>Assistant Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>Asian</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Terri</td><td>Biology</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Master's<ext-link /><sup>c</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr><tr><td>Tim</td><td>Environmental engineering</td><td>Professor</td><td>HSI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Tyrell</td><td>Computer science</td><td>Instructor</td><td>HBCU</td><td>Baccalaureate<ext-link /><sup>b</sup></td><td>Black</td><td>Man</td></tr><tr><td>Yvonne</td><td>Mathematical sciences</td><td>Professor</td><td>PWI</td><td>Doctoral<ext-link /><sup>f</sup></td><td>White</td><td>Woman</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: HBCU, Historically Black College/University; HSI, Hispanic Serving Institution; PBI, Predominantly Black Institution; PWI, Predominantly White Institution.</p> <ulist> <item>2 a Associate's Colleges: High Transfer‐High Traditional, Mixed Transfer/Career & Technical‐Mixed Traditional/Nontraditional, High Career & Technical‐Mixed Traditional/Nontraditional.</item> <item>3 b Baccalaureate Colleges: Mixed Baccalaureate/Associate's, Arts & Sciences Focus, Diverse Fields.</item> <item>4 c Master's Colleges/Universities—Larger Programs.</item> <item>5 d Doctoral Universities—Doctoral/Professional Universities.</item> <item>6 e Doctoral Universities—High Research Activity.</item> <item>7 f Doctoral Universities—Very High Research Activity.</item> </ulist> <p>We used an interpretive qualitative approach to describe how STEM faculty and administrators experience and navigate the recruitment and hiring of entry‐level tenure track and non‐tenure track faculty. Interview questions were developed to more deeply understand the findings from the preliminary quantitative data analyses. Specific to this study, we asked participants: Does your department require applicants to submit diversity statements? If so, how are they evaluated? We conducted one 60–75‐min semi‐structured interview with each participant. Interviews were transcribed via third‐party transcription service. Pseudonyms were used to mask participants' identities.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We used Jamovi, an open‐source statistics software based on R programming language (The Jamovi Project [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]), to clean and analyze the quantitative survey data. After computing descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median, count, and standard deviation) for the study variables, we used the chi‐square test of association and Mann‐Whitney U test to examine the relationship between participants' currently employed institution types and their responses to the questions related to diversity statements.</p> <p>We used initial coding techniques for our first cycle of interview data analysis. During initial coding, we read through the transcripts line by line to familiarize ourselves with the data (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref58">23</reflink>]). We developed key words and phrases for analytic consideration for the next coding cycle. During the second cycle of coding, we used focused coding to organize the data around salient categories to develop themes (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]). Authors 1 and 4 coded separately and met regularly after coding interviews to discuss and consolidate codes.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-14">Results and Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191257113-15">Quantitative Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191257113-16">Diversity Statement Requirements in Current Department</hd> <p>Among the 151 participants, more than half (<emph>n</emph> = 82, 54.3%) indicated their department does not require faculty applicants to submit diversity statements as part of the application, 44 (29.1%) said their department requires diversity statements, and 25 (16.6%) were not sure. We further examined the relationship between diversity statement requirements and institution types. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the distributions of diversity statement requirements by Carnegie Classifications and by MSI status, respectively.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Diversity statement requirements by Carnegie classification." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Diversity statement requirements by MSI status." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Our data revealed notable differences in diversity statement requirements across Carnegie Classifications. Only 25% of R1 and R2 doctoral universities required diversity statements, compared to 36% of non‐R1/R2 institutions; this difference was statistically significant (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 151) = 8.23, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). When examining MSI status, we observed that 36% of non‐MSIs required diversity statements, compared to 21% of MSIs (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 151) = 4.78, <emph>p</emph> < 0.1). These patterns suggest that research‐intensive universities and minority‐serving institutions may approach diversity evaluation differently in their hiring processes.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-19">Guidance on Evaluating Diversity Statements</hd> <p>For respondents who reported their department requires diversity statements in faculty applications, we asked whether their institution, college/school, or department provides guidance on evaluating them. A total of 43 out of the 44 participants who were asked this question responded. Among these 43 respondents, the majority (<emph>n</emph> = 26, 60.5%) reported no guidance was provided; only about a quarter (<emph>n</emph> = 11, 25.6%) reported guidance was provided, and 6 (14%) were not sure.</p> <p>We then investigated the relationship between guidance and institution types. Figures 3 and 4 show the distributions of guidance on evaluating diversity statements by Carnegie Classification and by MSI status, respectively. While doctoral (R1/R2) universities were less likely to require diversity statements overall, those that did require them were significantly more likely to provide evaluation guidance (43% of R1/R2 institutions compared to only 5% of non‐doctoral institutions) (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 43) = 8.58, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Notably, most respondents (80%) from non‐doctoral institutions indicated uncertainty about whether guidance was provided, signifying this is still an underdeveloped area in the evaluation of faculty hiring. When comparing MSIs and non‐MSIs, we observed more polarized patterns of guidance provision among MSIs (29% with guidance and 71% without guidance), with greater uncertainty among non‐MSI respondents (0% for MSIs vs. 21% for non‐MSI).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Guidance on evaluating diversity statements by Carnegie classification." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Guidance on evaluating diversity statements by MSI status." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191257113-22">Importance of Diversity Statements in Applications</hd> <p>Additional follow‐up questions were asked of those who reported their department required diversity statements in faculty applications. All 44 participants whose departments required diversity statements responded to these questions. We asked:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> How important to _B_you</bold> is a strong diversity statement to your <bold>positive</bold> evaluation of an applicant for faculty position in your department?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> How important to _B_other faculty in your department</bold> is a strong diversity statement to their <bold>positive</bold> evaluation of an applicant for faculty position in your department?</item> </ulist> <p>When asked about their own attitude toward the importance of diversity statements, half of the respondents (<emph>n</emph> = 22, 50%) considered a strong diversity statement to be extremely important in their positive evaluation of an application. Many others also considered it to be either very important or moderately important, as shown in Figure 5. The perceived importance of diversity statements was relatively consistent across institution types, with similar distributions regardless of MSI status or Carnegie Classification; no statistically significant relationships were observed based on institution types.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Importance of a strong diversity statement to respondents." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The results were different when asked about their colleagues' attitudes. Only 13.6% (<emph>n</emph> = 6) of the respondents thought a strong diversity statement was extremely important to other faculty members in their department when evaluating applications. Most responses ranged from slightly important to very important, with distributions shown in Figure 6. This suggests a potential disconnect between respondents' personal valuation of diversity statements and their perception of how colleagues value these statements. This pattern of individual versus perceived collective importance was relatively consistent across different institution types (MSI status and Carnegie doctoral universities) with no significant differences.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01dec25/he20529-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20529-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Perception of importance of a strong diversity statement to respondents' colleagues." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191257113-25">Opinions on Diversity Statement Requirements</hd> <p>In addition to diversity statement requirements in the currently employed institution/department, participants were also asked to rate their agreement with four statements about diversity statement requirements from their own perspectives. Overall, our results suggest that our respondents think diversity statements should be required in faculty applications regardless of institution types, disciplines, and student demographics. Most of our participants (<emph>n</emph> = 121, 80.1%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "<emph>Diversity statements should be required by all institutions regardless of student demographics</emph>." The majority of our participants also disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statements, "<emph>Diversity statements should be required only by institutions that serve a racially, ethnically, culturally, and otherwise diverse student body</emph>" (<emph>n</emph> = 113, 74.9%), "<emph>Diversity statements should not be required by any institutions</emph>" (<emph>n</emph> = 119, 78.8%), and "<emph>Diversity statements should not be required for positions where research in a technical field is a primary responsibility of the position</emph>" (<emph>n</emph> = 120, 79.5%). The support for diversity statements as a standard component of faculty applications was consistent across different institution types, with similar response patterns observed at both MSIs and non‐MSIs, and across different Carnegie Classifications; there were no significant differences. This suggests that among our respondents, support for diversity statements transcends institutional contexts and reflects a broader commitment to inclusive hiring practices in STEM fields.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-26">Qualitative Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191257113-27">Open‐Ended Survey Responses</hd> <p>In the survey, we asked respondents to list up to five characteristics of a strong diversity statement. Results yielded three major categories of characteristics: experience in applying DEI strategies, an understanding of DEI, and a plan to execute DEI once hired. Examples of responses that fell under each category are summarized in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TABLE Categories of characteristics of strong diversity statements based on survey responses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Responses</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Experience applying DEI strategies</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Experience enhancing diversity</p></list-item><list-item><p>DEI experience</p></list-item><list-item><p>Demonstrated success mentoring diverse students</p></list-item><list-item><p>Lived experiences based on intersecting identities</p></list-item><list-item><p>Prior experience in supporting DEI initiatives</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Understanding of DEI</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Clear understanding of DEI</p></list-item><list-item><p>DEI awareness</p></list-item><list-item><p>Acknowledgment of different paradigms</p></list-item><list-item><p>Acknowledgment that diversity is a critical classroom component</p></list-item><list-item><p>Giving specific examples</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Plan to execute DEI</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>A plan for diverse students</p></list-item><list-item><p>Specific/clear actions</p></list-item><list-item><p>Clear plan to enhance DEI in teaching/research/service</p></list-item><list-item><p>How they intend to create/support inclusive environments</p></list-item><list-item><p>Clear plan for infusing inclusive practice throughout all aspects of the faculty enterprise</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191257113-28">Diversity Statement Requirements in Current Department</hd> <p>Of the 25 interview participants, a little over half reported their departments do not require faculty applicants to submit diversity statements as part of the application. Of those, two indicated that DEI must be addressed within other documents (e.g., teaching statement, research statement) in the application package.</p> <p>Jeffrey's department does not require diversity statements, and he personally felt that diversity statements were "<emph>redundant. If someone is passionate about it, they'll talk about it [in the interview]</emph>." Consequently, he looks for diversity within the teaching and research sections of the applicant's cover letter (his department does not require teaching or research statements). Nicole, who is in a fairly new department, stated that she and her colleagues "<emph>haven't even thought about it [diversity statements]</emph>," and that applicants are not required to discuss diversity in any of their documents.</p> <p>A total of 11 interview participants said their departments do require diversity statements, with eight of those indicating diversity statements are a university requirement. For departments that required diversity statements, most started requiring them within the past 5 years. About half of them used a rubric for evaluation, whether as part of a larger holistic rubric, or as a standalone rubric.</p> <p>A few respondents expressed that diversity statements were necessary to assess candidates' beliefs and experiences. Tim noted that when diversity is discussed as part of another document and is not required as a stand‐alone statement, it feels like the candidate "<emph>slaps on a paragraph</emph>" about diversity. Similarly, Ryan commented, "<emph>we found that if we just asked them [applicants] to do it [address diversity in other documents], people would just leave it out</emph>."</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-29">Diversity Statements as a Boost</hd> <p>Several respondents indicated that good diversity statements were often viewed as a "boost," or something to put one candidate over another. To that point, Taylor noted:</p> <p> <emph>They [diversity statements] are evaluated as adding something...if you articulate a very clear vision of what you want to do, then it becomes a bit more significant of a statement...it essentially functions like bonus points if it's good, it adds a bump</emph>.</p> <p>Despite providing candidates a "boost," diversity statements may not be valued in the same way that research statements are. For example, Pam commented that "<emph>a great diversity statement is not going to overcome a weak research plan. But a really poor diversity statement is going to pull a great research plan out of contention</emph>." Diversity statements could be used to rank candidates search committees already like. Yvonne expanded on that point, stating:</p> <p> <emph>At the end of the day, they [departments] just want the ones [candidates] that are research focused coming from the brand name institution. So, while it [diversity statement] strengthens their candidacy and shows their capacity to have far reaching impact on the student body, the name of the game is: Are they going to bring in money?</emph> </p> <p>Pam similarly stated, "<emph>We really care about social justice. But if they're not going to be able to bring in money and publish, they're not going to be successful here, no matter how much we like them</emph>."</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-30">Statement Requirements as Lip Service</hd> <p>Of faculty whose departments required diversity statements, some noted feeling that applicants were giving "canned responses." Participants indicated they were looking for a deeper knowledge of diversity in candidates' statements; instead, the submission of diversity statements has become more of a checklist item with statements starting to sound the same from applicants. To that point, Harry stated, "Some people give it lip service. They say it's important but don't have experience...its' one thing to count someone's publications. It's a whole other thing to try to gauge how they're thinking about DEI." Similarly, Terri described her experience with reading applicants' diversity statements:</p> <p> <emph>...the canned phrase now is that 'I provide several different learning mechanisms, ways for my students to learn.' I think that we need more education and inclusive teaching and what that means...we need to educate both the search committees and the candidates</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-31">Guidance Provided for Diversity Statement Evaluation</hd> <p>Most interview participants indicated their departments provided applicants with little to no guidance on what search committees were looking for in submitted diversity statements. They felt guidance for search committees and applicants beyond "please provide a statement detailing your commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion" request for diversity statements. For example, when asked if her department provided guidance to applicants on how to write diversity statements, Ashley stated, "<emph>It [job announcement] would not say what we are looking for, I can guarantee you. That would be nice to be transparent and communicative." "How do we provide some sort of direction but not too much?</emph>" Landry's question is one some of our interview participants seemed to be grappling with. Like some previous respondents, Landry felt that diversity statements are "<emph>largely the same</emph>." To combat this, he suggested that search committees should provide information or prompts for applicants regarding what they are looking for in a good diversity statement.</p> <p>Very few participants' departments/colleges provided guidance to applicants. In fact, only one participant was able to describe in detail the guidance her college provides to applicants. Lisa's college provides a website for the DEI portions of the faculty application and examples:</p> <p> <emph>I've actually created an entire website that includes the job advertisement and says, 'Here's what we're talking about when we want to hear about your knowledge, skills, and activities related to DEI work.' It's based on the University of California System material that they shared, and then we modified it</emph>.</p> <p>Lisa also mentioned that the prompt for the diversity statement differs from search to search.</p> <p>Many participants shared frustrations regarding evaluation practices and the lack of guidance received on how to evaluate diversity statements. When asked if they use rubrics or any formal type of evaluation for diversity statements, many responses were along the lines of "that would be nice." Landry indicated that his department received guidance from Human Resources (HR) on evaluating diversity statements; however, he was in the minority. Ashley reported that diversity statements were ranked as part of an overall package; however, "<emph>there was no evaluation rubric; it would have been nice."</emph> Brandon's department moved away from rubrics due to the <emph>"illusion of fairness</emph>." He did note, however, that diversity statements are difficult to evaluate because "<emph>a lot of the candidates are struggling to write a good diversity statement because they don't really have the experience</emph>." Taylor noted in his interview that he works in a small department, and they do not use rubrics for any evaluation. But he also noted observing some "Ivy bias" in the discussion of candidates and expressed a desire to look into the use of rubrics to help mitigate bias in the hiring process.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-32">Differences in Requirements by Institution Type</hd> <p>Our quantitative results showed departments at Carnegie R1 and R2 institutions required diversity statements at lower rates than non‐R1/R2 universities, and MSIs similarly were less likely to require diversity statements than non‐MSIs. Jeffrey and Tanya (faculty members from MSIs that are not R1 or R2) indicated that their departments do not require diversity statements, but instead, look for applicants to discuss diversity in their other documents. For example, Tanya's department asks applicants to address: "<emph>How [is] your research focus going to help the local community?</emph>" in the research statement.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-33">Conclusion and Recommendations</hd> <p>This study assessed search committee members' use of diversity statements in evaluating STEM faculty applicants. There were four key findings. First, we found that most STEM departments represented by our research participants do not require diversity statements. Second, for departments that do require diversity statements, they serve to "boost" an application, but are not valued on par with research or teaching statements. Third, many respondents felt like diversity statements were a form of lip service, simply checking a box. Finally, most participants indicated that they receive little to no guidance in the evaluation of diversity statements.</p> <p>A department's request for diversity statements may signal to applicants the department's/institution's commitment to diversity and may also signal to applicants that a commitment to DEI is required. However, if departments/institutions lack a genuine commitment to DEI, one can surmise that diversity statements are simply lip service and will not hold as much weight with hiring committees at these institutions.</p> <p>Inclusive excellence regarding teaching, research, and service should be desired, considered rigorous, and of merit. Quite often, unless expressly part of a faculty's job duties, diversity initiatives and research are not considered as rigorous as technical contributions (Joseph et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref63">15</reflink>]). To this point, Liu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>]) found that only 15 of 102 R1 institutions requested information about faculty's diversity work in their merit reviews. In the case of faculty hiring, Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]) found that an applicant's ability to incorporate DEI within their teaching, research, and mentoring was rated as less important. Unfortunately, increased diversity is often perceived negatively and erroneously equated with decreased quality, rigor, and merit.</p> <p>Transparency and communication in the faculty hiring process—understanding what the committee is looking for—would help both the search committee and the applicant. This finding supports research from Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]), who found a need for more clear criteria for hiring needs and from Campos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]) calling for increased transparency in the faculty hiring process. Most participants in our study mentioned they received little to no guidance on evaluating diversity statements.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-34">Recommendations</hd> <p>Based on the findings of this study, we neither recommend the use of nor suggest committees stop requiring diversity statements. However, for committees that do require diversity statements, we recommend the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Before posting job announcements, faculty search committees should create guidance for what they are looking for in a diversity statement, including their definition for diversity and the metrics used for evaluation. This way, the committee and the applicants clearly recognize requirements, eliminating guesswork.</item> <p></p> <item> Faculty search committees should create a rubric for evaluating diversity statements or include a section on an existing rubric based on the desired attributes in an applicant's statement. Using a rubric will help committee members rate all candidates using consistent criteria. The related metrics must be weighted sufficiently so they actually matter in evaluating applicants.</item> </ulist> <p>Given the misrepresentations of diversity statements as loyalty oaths in the current wave of anti‐DEI efforts in US higher education, institutions should strive to ensure application materials reflect what faculty members are responsible for in their work. Part of evaluating merit in faculty hiring is understanding how/if applicants can teach, advise, and mentor students from a range of backgrounds and identities and collaborate effectively with colleagues and external partners from different backgrounds, skills, and perspectives to advance research and service. With clear guidance (recommendation #1) and quality rubrics (recommendation #2), these qualifications can be assessed in cover letters, teaching statements, research statements, and CVs without the use of diversity statements.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-35">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Torrie A. Cropps</bold>: formal analysis (qualitative lead), investigation (qualitative lead), methodology (equal), supervision (supporting), writing—original draft prep (lead), writing—review and editing (lead). <bold>Jue Wu</bold>: formal analysis (quantitative lead), methodology (equal), visualization (lead), writing—original draft preparation (supporting), writing—review and editing (equal). <bold>Yvette E. Pearson</bold>: conceptualization (lead), funding acquisition (lead), methodology (equal), supervision (lead), investigation (supporting); visualization (supporting), writing—review and editing (equal). <bold>Samara R. Boyle</bold>: formal analysis (supporting), writing—review and editing (supporting). <bold>Canek M. L. Phillips</bold>: conceptualization (supporting), funding acquisition (supporting), investigation (quantitative lead), methodology (equal), writing—review and editing (equal). <bold>Stephen P. Mattingly</bold>: investigation (supporting); writing—review and editing (supporting). <bold>Lisa J. Borello</bold>: writing—review and editing (supporting)</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-36">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program under award number 1916093 to Rice University via a subaward to The University of Texas at Dallas. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge all the faculty members and administrators who participated in this study, our research advisory board members who provided insights, and all the organizations that supported our efforts to recruit participants.</p> <hd id="AN0191257113-37">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <ref id="AN0191257113-38"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This research was supported by National Science Foundation's Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program under award number 1916093.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191257113-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> al‐Gharbi, M. 2020. Diversity is Important. Diversity‐Related Training is Terrible. Minding the Campus. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/11/06/diversity‐is‐important‐diversity‐related‐training‐is‐terrible/">www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/11/06/diversity‐is‐important‐diversity‐related‐training‐is‐terrible/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bensimon, E. M. 2016. The Misbegotten URM as a Data Point. Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bhalla, N. 2019. " Strategies to Improve Equity in Faculty Hiring." Molecular Biology of the Cell 30, no. 22 : 2744 – 2749. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E19‐08‐0476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blair‐Loy, M., O. V. Mayorova, P. C. Cosman, and S. I. Fraley. 2022. " Can Rubrics Combat Gender Bias in Faculty Hiring? " Science 377, no. 6601 : 35 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bombaci, S. P., and L. Pejchar. 2022. " Advancing Equity in Faculty Hiring With Diversity Statements." Bioscience 72, no. 4 : 365 – 371.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boyle, S. R., C. M. L. Phillips, Y. E. Pearson, et al. 2020. An Exploratory Study of Intentionality Toward Diversity in STEM Faculty Hiring. In 2020 American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/34124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref45" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braileanu, M., B. B. Risk, N. Kadom, et al. 2020. " Structured Curriculum Vitae Scoring as a Standardized Tool for Selecting Interview Candidates for Academic Neuroradiology Faculty Positions." Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 49, no. 6 : 377 – 381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Campos, J. S., E. J. Wherry, S. Shin, and J. F. Ortiz‐Carpena. 2021. " Challenging Systemic Barriers to Promote the Inclusion, Recruitment, and Retention of URM Faculty in STEM." Cell Host & Microbe 29, no. 6 : 862 – 866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2021.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Charles, J. B. 2023. At Gathering of DEI Officers, Fear, Anger, Joy, and Solidarity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 18, 2023. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/at‐gathering‐of‐dei‐officers‐fear‐anger‐joy‐and‐solidarity">www.chronicle.com/article/at‐gathering‐of‐dei‐officers‐fear‐anger‐joy‐and‐solidarity</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chronicle of Higher Education. 2024. DEI Legislation Tracker. Accessed August 12, 2024. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/here‐are‐the‐states‐where‐lawmakers‐are‐seeking‐to‐ban‐colleges‐dei‐efforts">www.chronicle.com/article/here‐are‐the‐states‐where‐lawmakers‐are‐seeking‐to‐ban‐colleges‐dei‐efforts</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dovidio, J. F., and S. L. Gaertner. 2000. " Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999." Psychological science 11, no. 4 : 315 – 319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flaherty, C. 2017. September 10. Inside a Search Committee. Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/11/study‐offers‐window‐what‐search‐committee‐members‐value‐assessing‐faculty‐candidates">www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/11/study‐offers‐window‐what‐search‐committee‐members‐value‐assessing‐faculty‐candidates</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, C. 2019. The Case for Cluster Hiring to Diversify Your Faculty. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 9, 2019. Retrieved from. https://ilpqc.org/ILPQC%202020%2B/Birth%20Equity/The%20Case%20for%20Cluster%20Hiring%20to%20Diversify%20Your%20Faculty.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2000. " Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians." American Economic Review 90, no. 4 : 715 – 741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, N. M., C. Haynes, and L. D. Patton. 2021. " The Politics of Publishing: A National Conversation With Scholars Who Use Their Research About Black Women to Address Intersectionality." Educational Researcher 50, no. 2 : 115 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazmi, M. A., C. Spitzmueller, J. Yu, et al. 2022. " Search Committee Diversity and Applicant Pool Representation of Women and Underrepresented Minorities: A Quasi‐Experimental Field Study." Journal of Applied Psychology 107, no. 8 : 1414 – 1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000725.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, A. H., M. G. Findley, D. L. Leal, et al. 2023. " Normalizing Diversity in Merit Forms." PS: Political Science & Politics 56, no. 1 : 123 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara, K., D. Culpepper, and L. L. Templeton. 2020. " Nudging Toward Diversity: Applying Behavioral Design to Faculty Hiring." Review of Educational Research 90, no. 3 : 311 – 348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914742.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orupabo, J., and M. Mangset. 2021. " Promoting Diversity but Striving for Excellence: Opening the "Black Box" of Academic Hiring." Sociology 56, no. 2 : 316 – 332. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385211028064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, J. D., and R. Maranto. 2021. Other Than Merit: The Prevalence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statements in University Hiring. American Enterprise Institute. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep38705">http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep38705</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid, R. A. 2021. " Retaining Women Faculty: The Problem of Invisible Labor." PS: Political Science & Politics 54, no. 3 : 504 – 506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roy, J. 2018. Engineering by the Numbers. American Society of Engineering Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.asee.org/documents/papers‐and‐publications/publications/college‐profiles/2018‐Engineering‐by‐Numbers‐Engineering‐Statistics‐UPDATED‐15‐July‐2019.pdf">www.asee.org/documents/papers‐and‐publications/publications/college‐profiles/2018‐Engineering‐by‐Numbers‐Engineering‐Statistics‐UPDATED‐15‐July‐2019.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmaling, K. B., A. Y. Trevino, J. R. Lind, A. W. Blume, and D. L. Baker. 2015. " Diversity Statements: How Faculty Applicants Address Diversity." Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 8, no. 4 : 213 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sensoy, O., and R. DiAngelo. 2017. " "We Are All for Diversity, but...": How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and Practical Suggestions for How They Can Change." Harvard Educational Review 87, no. 4 : 557 – 580. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943‐5045‐87.4.557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group. 2017. " The Burden of Invisible Work in Academia: Social Inequalities and Time Use in Five University Departments." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 39 : 228 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Legislature. 2023. SB 17: Legislative Session: 88(R). Jun 17, 2023. Retrieved from: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&00026;Bill=SB17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Jamovi Project. 2021. " Jamovi. (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]." Retrieved from https://jamovi.org.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, C., J. González, and J. Wood. 2008. " Faculty of Color in Academe: What 20 Years of Literature Tells Us." Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1, no. 3 : 139 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012837.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Delaware. 2023. Faculty Hiring: Best Practices for Search Committees. UD ADVANCE Institute. https://sites.udel.edu/advance/files/2023/07/Recruitment‐Manual‐w‐Appendices‐July‐20‐2023.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, J., T. A. Cropps, C. M. L. Phillips, S. Boyle, and Y. E. Pearson. 2023. " Applicant Qualifications and Characteristics in STEM Faculty Hiring: An Analysis of Faculty and Administrator Perspectives." International Journal of STEM Education 10, no. 1 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594‐023‐00431‐w.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Torrie A. Cropps; Jue Wu; Yvette E. Pearson; Samara R. Boyle; Canek M. L. Phillips; Stephen P. Mattingly and Lisa J. Borello</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1495758
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Search Committee Members' Perspectives on Diversity Statements in STEM Faculty Job Applications
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Torrie+A%2E+Cropps%22">Torrie A. Cropps</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-8798">0000-0002-2974-8798</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jue+Wu%22">Jue Wu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2931-7146">0000-0002-2931-7146</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yvette+E%2E+Pearson%22">Yvette E. Pearson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8781-7085">0000-0002-8781-7085</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Samara+R%2E+Boyle%22">Samara R. Boyle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8555-9799">0000-0002-8555-9799</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Canek+M%2E+L%2E+Phillips%22">Canek M. L. Phillips</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6571-2733">0000-0002-6571-2733</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+P%2E+Mattingly%22">Stephen P. Mattingly</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6515-6813">0000-0001-6515-6813</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lisa+J%2E+Borello%22">Lisa J. Borello</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9642-6851">0009-0005-9642-6851</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 (212):5-16.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF), Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1916093
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Search+Committees+%28Personnel%29%22">Search Committees (Personnel)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Applicants%22">Job Applicants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Position+Papers%22">Position Papers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incidence%22">Incidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diversity+%28Faculty%29%22">Diversity (Faculty)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20529
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560<br />1536-0741
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Faculty search committees use diversity statements as a component of job applications in an effort to increase the representation of racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) faculty members and to assess if prospective faculty members can contribute to an institutional culture that is respectful and supportive of all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of identity. In recent years, diversity statements have been politicized as loyalty oaths and some state laws have banned their use at public institutions of higher education, although some public institutions in other states and private institutions still require applicants to submit them. This paper presents an explanatory mixed methods study to answer the questions: (1) How prevalent are diversity statement requirements for STEM faculty hiring? (2) Do diversity statement requirements differ by institution type? (3) To what extent do universities equip search committees to evaluate diversity statements? We deployed a nationwide survey to STEM faculty members and administrators experienced in faculty search processes and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of respondents. Our results produced recommendations for both the effective use of diversity statements, and for academic leaders in states where they are not allowed, suggestions for evaluating faculty applicants' ability to effectively collaborate with people and partners who have different backgrounds and perspectives.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1495758
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1495758
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20529
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 5
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Search Committees (Personnel)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Applicants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Position Papers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diversity (Faculty)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Search Committee Members' Perspectives on Diversity Statements in STEM Faculty Job Applications
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Torrie A. Cropps
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jue Wu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yvette E. Pearson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Samara R. Boyle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Canek M. L. Phillips
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen P. Mattingly
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lisa J. Borello
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0741
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 212
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1