next »

[mended_drum]

Okay, someone on the other thread wants a conversation about diversity to start, and this section of the fora has been kind of quiet, so I'm bring this question here.

How do the rest of you--if you do so--decide whether or not a characteristic in an interview is off putting because of a cultural blind spot?  That is, let's say you're interviewing ten candidates at a conference interview, and you find that you're responding to four of them very positively because they are energetic and enthusiastic.  However, two other candidates, who are from a different culture, are far more laconic and reserved, but seem to be equally qualified on paper.  Do you try to ignore your first instinct, the one that makes you respond to the more gregarious candidates so that you don't exclude candidates who might add diversity to your department? 

Or, suppose one candidate repeats each question and rewords it before responding, and you find this odd.  But one of you suspects it's a careful approach from a non-native speaker.  Do you ignore this trait even if you respond badly to it?  How much do you ignore it?  What if another candidate is equally qualified on paper, but interacts more smoothly and easily with the committee?

I have no agenda here, by the way.  This is a genuine question with which I have seen myself and many of my colleagues struggle, especially when interviewing candidates who come from cultures or traditions with which we have little familiarity.

[dundee]

I don't know which culture(s) the laconic candidates are from, but there's a good chance it's my own. I have found Americans (in general) to be much more forward, direct, outgoing, and self-promoting than people from my own country. Over the years I have adopted most of those behaviors to an extent, but it was a real struggle. My culturally-bred inclination is to be laconic and let my qualifications speak for themselves. If the candidates in question don't live in the U.S., or haven't been here long, they may not even be aware that their demeanour is different from the American norm. I think you should cut them some slack.

[sheinthespirit]

Thanks for some honest questions about inclusion.

Briefly, the concept of homopholy informs us that we like/feel most comfortable around people likes ourselves.

That seems natural, but when we are considering, "what experiences should our students have?" and "what can we learn from folks who are different than ourselves?"  The answer is to dare to be different.  At some level.

Qualifications are important.  Personality is as well.

I would do some research, if I was unfamiliar with the communication style/background of this person/people.

The more I know about---let's indirect/high context cultures, the more I realize, their answers/responses/language formation will rarely be like mine. Not a criticism, just not likely.

I too say step out of the box. You (dept. members), the students, and she/he who is hired might learn a lot more than you bargained for. 

Thanks again.  Hope this helps.

[mended_drum]

I don't know which culture(s) the laconic candidates are from, but there's a good chance it's my own. I have found Americans (in general) to be much more forward, direct, outgoing, and self-promoting than people from my own country. Over the years I have adopted most of those behaviors to an extent, but it was a real struggle. My culturally-bred inclination is to be laconic and let my qualifications speak for themselves. If the candidates in question don't live in the U.S., or haven't been here long, they may not even be aware that their demeanour is different from the American norm. I think you should cut them some slack.

The difficulty is that we have so many extraordinary candidates available in our field.  It's not a matter of choosing the quiet candidate with better credentials on paper, but of weighing added diversity to the department against an outgoing, interactive personality.  Moreover, as it's a SLAC, research is a secondary concern; we would never hire the brilliant scholar who doesn't like or isn't good at teaching.  So we have to make sure that a candidate can reach out to our students, while also recognizing that it's good for students to change some of their expectations, as well.  The dean will want candidates who can interact well with parents and alums, as well as students.  Shy candidates always seem to fade away in consideration when they have backgrounds similar to the rest of the department, a problem that one of my colleagues really struggles over.  How do we distinguish cultural behavior from personal characteristics?  How hard do we work to draw out a candidate?  It is really quite difficult, and a couple of my colleagues agonize over our decisions for days and weeks because of these issues.

[takapa]

Good questions and I have a different kind of response.  In the past, we would have had to consider such things.  But, today things are so very different for us.  My department and university was research oriented before I arrived some years back, but today research, publications, and funding are all that are important.  We have the other prongs in our plans and in the evaluation system (teaching and service), but they are not nearly as important as research productivity.  A couple of years ago we were hiring at the associate level and brought in three candidates.  The top candidate in terms of research (there was a sort-of-close second place in this regard) was an individual with what all the members of the SC, myself included, viewed as no real personality.  He just seemed like a rock.  It was not cultural (to my knowledge) as he was your average white guy.  The second choice was close, and had a wonderful personality.  We knew we would offer him the spot solely on his creds, particularly when he outlined his research and funding profile going forward.  We made our recommendation to hire him at a faculty meeting where we noted that he wouldn't be someone throwing dinner parties or anything.  The most senior faculty in the department said (direct quote) "I don't care if he is the biggest S.O.B. or the most boring snot in the world, his research equals the offer."  And so it went.  Good or bad, from the Chair, to the Dean, to the President of our U, that is what we consider.  Of course, other departments such as in our arts programs have different products to consider, but I understand they view it in the same light.

[bigsky]

When we have a candidate come in and give a research seminar we are looking at his/her ability to engage our students. If a candidate is very reserved, factual but boring, that person will always come in behind the engaging personality.

I agonized over this a few years ago where I was SCC and the best candidate on paper (by far) gave a very boring, lackluster seminar. I was so disappointed because she did the coolest research! As chair of the search I got to know her better than most (trips to the airport, initial dinner, etc.) and she was a very pleasant person to be around when she had the chance to open up. But, I already knew that her candidacy was doomed by her presentation. I felt even worse when I saw her at a meeting later in the year. I was convinced she would have done a great job and been a great colleague but unfortunately that did not come through in the interview. By the way, this person was also "your average white guy (gal)" so it wasn't a cultural issue.

[dundee]

I think a lot of discrimination against candidates from other cultures occurs under the guise of "fit." And no, I am not about to offer a "woe is me" tale. On the contrary, I happen to be from a country that people in the U.S. think is cool, so, if anything, it's an advantage. At the SLAC where I used to teach, a number of the foreign faculty with skin that was not white were "encouraged" to take accent reduction courses. Were the white faculty from places like Germany, Canada, Ireland and the UK asked to take the accent reduction courses? Of course not. Why? Because our accents were "cool" and the other foreign faculty members' accents were "hard to understand." It was incredibly racist, in a not very subtle way, and all marketed along the lines of "doing what's best for our wonderful upper-middle-class students." Overall, I loved teaching at the SLAC, but this particular issues really gets my goat and I am willing to bet that it takes place all over the country.

[bigsky]

At the SLAC where I used to teach, a number of the foreign faculty with skin that was not white were "encouraged" to take accent reduction courses.

Accent reduction?! That is chilling to hear, particularly from an institute of higher learning.

It reminds me of a hire at my grad school. The chair was against a French woman that was the top candidate. One of his stated reasons was that he did not want to deal with the student complaints about her (admitedly thick) accent. Fortunately, he lost the battle.

[sockgumbee]

Is US white culture so monolithic that everyone who is "white" would act really similar in an interview situation as implied by the original question and some of the answers?

I don't know about others but I find that kind of insulting. Part of the problems I see in some representations of multi-culturalism or diversity is that "white" is a big ball of sameness. I also think a lot white people buy into that, unless we're talking about some obvious regional or larger cultural difference like being from the South or being Jewish.

Perhaps it would be easier to be more accepting of "cultural" difference in an interviewee if the folks interviewing didn't see their culture as neutral or normal or "correct". Especially as some people have pointed out on other threads and some have implied here that there is a range of behavior is acceptable for "white" job candidates. Good to broaden that range to anyone who applies.

[onestep]

I've really enjoyed this thread, both for the importance of the question and the candor and tenor of the replies.  Thanks to all of your for your insights.  I'm learning a good deal.

We've been wrestling with the same issue raised by the OP.  When someone doesn't fit our departmental or university norms, is it a personality thing or a cultural thing?  We had a candidate from Appalachia who looked pretty good on paper, but had some mannerisms that put off many people off.  Were folks put off because of culture or her own personality?  Hard to tell as none of us were from Appalachia, so the best we could do was guess what that culture was based on our stereotypes.  Yet, it was undeniable that her thinking process and speech patterns differed from most of ours.  I thought that was good reason to hire her; she'd give us new intellectual perspectives.  Of course, I was untenured and while I had an equal vote, I did not have an equal voice.

a number of the foreign faculty with skin that was not white were "encouraged" to take accent reduction courses. Were the white faculty from places like Germany, Canada, Ireland and the UK asked to take the accent reduction courses? Of course not. Why? Because our accents were "cool" and the other foreign faculty members' accents were "hard to understand."

I've noticed this as well.  In fact, my 8-year old niece asked, "why are Australian accents cool while Chinese accents are not?"  Apparently at her school, the kids make fun of the Chinese students while simultaneously trying to imitate the Australian ones.

Part of the problems I see in some representations of multi-culturalism or diversity is that "white" is a big ball of sameness.

Perhaps it would be easier to be more accepting of "cultural" difference in an interviewee if the folks interviewing didn't see their culture as neutral or normal or "correct".

I agree 100% on both points.  The difficulty, however, is that I think we most often view our own culture (whatever that may be) as both normal and correct.  And that's where the cultural blinders get in the way.  Take burping.  In some cultures, burping after dinner is considered a sign of respect to the host and chef.  If Dr. X burps, is she being rude or courteous?  I guess it's both depending on one's frame of reference.  But, without raising the questions of whether we should simply assume that X is being rude, we'd never know the difference.  I guess the question for me is how can we get around viewing our culture as normal and correct?  I'm asking this neutrally and sincerely.

[mended_drum]

Is US white culture so monolithic that everyone who is "white" would act really similar in an interview situation as implied by the original question and some of the answers?

This is a good question, and there are some concerns in the department about the way that the interview process favors extroverted candidates.  However, we don't question our motives--even if we question our methods--when we prefer a more outgoing white candidate to a shy white candidate.  It's the addition of a (possible) cultural barrier that makes us second guess ourselves.

[sockgumbee]

I've trying to think about how to answer the 'burp' question and the extroverted vs introverted, while spending too much time with Irish abjection.

so here's my take--unless you live out way out in the woods there has got to be a way to connect with people who are not of your culture. Almost every small town now has an Asian restaurant for instance. Go talk to those people. Or go to the nearest metropolitan area where you get mix and mingle with people who are not like you. I don't know any other way to get over second guessing yourself or taking tourist guide info as some profound statement about a culture or group of people. So much better to learn for yourself. Listen to the local radio station that plays Iraqi music or watch the cable access channel that has Latina/o comedy. Go to the International festival and actually talk to people. Do what ever you can to get into the lives of others and out of your own.

I guess you have to ask yourself: If a person burps after our job visit meal with them, is that a deal breaker? And would the identity of the person change your answer.