Ensuring More Inclusive Hiring Processes Carmen Cole (bio) and Emily Mross (bio) The American Library Association (ALA) considers demonstrating “the principles of effective personnel practices and human resource development” a core competency of librarianship.1 Yet, few librarians receive specific training to serve on hiring committees as part of their degree studies, though most find themselves asked to participate in searches, sometimes frequently, depending on their institution. As early career librarians, the authors have served on multiple committees in a large academic library, gaining more experience about the process each time. Their work on search committees sparked an interest in implementing best practices to ensure a good experience for job candidates and successful searches that improve services to the university community. Their experience also inspired a research interest. Search committees are gatekeepers. Who is kept out, and why? Exploring library hiring from an academic perspective brings to light uncomfortable truths. Each person on a search committee has biases that must be confronted to minimize preconceived ideas, and the group must work together so that each candidate receives a fair evaluation based on objective criteria. This decision-making can be complicated and challenging, depending on many factors.2 A successful search not only means that a good candidate is hired but also requires that the search committee works together, communicates well, develops and uses a fair rubric to assess the applicant pool, gives candidates proper and equal consideration, and chooses a well-qualified finalist who accepts the job offer. It is not impossible, but it is not easy. What further complicates the hiring task is the lack of diversity in librarianship. Homogeneous libraries create homogeneous search committees. Without thoughtful, introspective work, such committees can perpetuate a homogeneous library rather than a diverse, inclusive one.3 The authors are not experts in diversity or hiring. They are practitioners who strive to improve the library hiring process for everyone involved, toward the goal of equitable, inclusive libraries for employees and users. Their responsibilities necessitated much questioning, reading, and research. Members of current and future search committees [End Page 507] at any library should take a similar perspective toward their work. Without a collective understanding of the barriers to equity, diversity, and inclusion in library hiring, nothing will change—and change is far overdue. “Fit” and Academic Librarianship The need to diversify librarianship and the lack of progress toward this goal are common topics of conversation in formal and informal spheres of the profession.4 Similar conversations take place throughout academe as well. A culprit often examined in the literature and in practice is the nefarious yet ubiquitous concept of “fit” in hiring.5 Those who serve on search committees have tried to quantify the notion in nonsubjective ways, but the perennial problem is that fit tends to be ineffable. Committee members may declare that a candidate “feels right,” but they often say so because the applicant shares many similarities to them.6 These resemblances tend to reinforce homogeneity and hegemony because librarianship, much like academe as a whole, is overwhelmingly White. The problem does not begin at the hiring stage.7 The notion of fit tracks back much further and can cause people who do not conform to that image to decide against librarianship as a career long before they would ever apply for a job.8 The Librarian Pipeline Frequently, librarians blame the pipeline of new librarians for lacking diversity. The pipeline myth is the persistent idea that diversity remains a challenge for library hiring because of a shortage of qualified, degree-holding persons from historically minoritized groups to fill vacancies.9 Most students pursuing a master of library and information science (MLIS) degree and most recent MLIS graduates are White. In 2020, approximately 60 percent of MLIS students were White, even though the number has dropped approximately 15 percentage points since 1990; currently nearly 40 percent of degree candidates come from other racial or ethnic groups.10 Data from the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) show that in 2020, 62 percent of those receiving a master’s degree from an ALA-accredited program were White.11 The overall percentage of Whites holding a graduate degree in library...
Read full abstract
Jun 23, 2024
Noga Glucksam 
Open Access