Open to talent? How scientists assess merit and diversity in hiring

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
David R. Johnson, Brandon Vaidyanathan
{"title":"Open to talent? How scientists assess merit and diversity in hiring","authors":"David R. Johnson, Brandon Vaidyanathan","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01244-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Universities and research institutes increasingly emphasize diversity in hiring scientists. The organizational practice of considering personal characteristics of scientists seemingly conflicts with an institutional norm of universalism in which rewards are allocated according to pre-established impersonal criteria. How do scientists view the relationship between merit and diversity in hiring? This study addresses this question through an analysis of in-depth interviews with 119 physicists and biologists in the US, the United Kingdom, India, and Italy. The results point to three broad patterns. First, most scientists regard insufficient diversity in science as a problem but not all view personal characteristics as critical to appointment processes. Second, organizational diversity initiatives generate adverse effects for underrepresented scientists and research organizations. Finally, some scientists argue that the notion of merit should be reframed to consider personal characteristics of scientists. Such patterns demonstrate how competing goals of organizational and institutional reward systems generate normative conflict in science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01244-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Universities and research institutes increasingly emphasize diversity in hiring scientists. The organizational practice of considering personal characteristics of scientists seemingly conflicts with an institutional norm of universalism in which rewards are allocated according to pre-established impersonal criteria. How do scientists view the relationship between merit and diversity in hiring? This study addresses this question through an analysis of in-depth interviews with 119 physicists and biologists in the US, the United Kingdom, India, and Italy. The results point to three broad patterns. First, most scientists regard insufficient diversity in science as a problem but not all view personal characteristics as critical to appointment processes. Second, organizational diversity initiatives generate adverse effects for underrepresented scientists and research organizations. Finally, some scientists argue that the notion of merit should be reframed to consider personal characteristics of scientists. Such patterns demonstrate how competing goals of organizational and institutional reward systems generate normative conflict in science.

Abstract Image

向人才开放?科学家如何评估招聘中的优点和多样性
大学和研究机构在聘用科学家时越来越强调多样性。考虑科学家个人特点的组织做法似乎与普遍主义的制度规范相冲突,在普遍主义的制度规范中,奖励是根据预先确定的非个人标准进行分配的。科学家们是如何看待招聘中业绩与多样性之间的关系的?本研究通过对美国、英国、印度和意大利的 119 位物理学家和生物学家的深入访谈进行分析,探讨了这一问题。结果显示了三大模式。首先,大多数科学家认为科学领域的多样性不足是一个问题,但并非所有科学家都认为个人特征对聘任过程至关重要。其次,组织多样性倡议对代表性不足的科学家和研究组织产生了不利影响。最后,一些科学家认为,应该重新构建 "绩优 "的概念,以考虑科学家的个人特征。这些模式表明,组织和机构奖励制度的竞争目标是如何在科学中产生规范性冲突的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators. While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts. Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信