Previous |
Next |
September 12, 2008, 10:31 AM ET
The Perils of 'Fit'
In any discussion of academic hiring, the matter of institutional “fit” will always arise. Colleges and universities obviously want to ensure that the people they hire can succeed in their specific institutional contexts, and rightly look at qualifications, skill sets, past experiences, and temperament in making hiring decisions.
The problem with fit, of course, is that it can also be an instrument of discrimination. “Will this person work out here?” can easily turn into “this candidate is not like us.” Because fit has essentially no objective indicators, it is a slippery concept and can certainly be used dishonorably or illegally to discriminate against qualified candidates.
It is unrealistic, though, to assume that paper qualifications are a sufficient indicator of an individual’s potential at a specific campus. Interest and or/experience in a particular type of institution, knowledge of and willingness to live in a specific region of the country, willingness to work with an institution’s students, and so on, are all issues of fit that are not so easy to measure from a CV, and yet are certainly valid criteria for selecting a candidate.
So, how can we deal with the question of fit in an ethical, effective, and nondiscriminatory way? Is there any way to document fit objectively? Is there a way to disentangle fit from questions of identity politics?
On Hiring is The Chronicle's blog about the ins and outs of college hiring, with articles and advice from around the Web.
Add Your Comment
Commenting is closed.