Substantive Dimensions of the Deliberations

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Lee Ann Fujii

Transparency in hiring, promotion, etc.

PostWed May 18, 2016 2:21 pm

Following the DA-RT "discussion" makes it appear that the only area where the discipline as a whole has not been transparent enough is replication and data access, whatever those terms mean.

Since we seem to be stuck on the topic of transparency, why not broaden the discussion to other areas of the discipline where "more" transparency might help, such as:

- Hiring
- Promotion
- Salary levels and merit raises
- Article review processes

As a discipline, our ability to replicate a mostly white academy has been impeccable. What is the secret to this success? How have we managed so beautifully to pay female new hires less than their male counterparts who are hired at exactly the same time and with equivalent records? How have we managed to keep the issue of the diversity sidelined in every faculty meeting about hiring and even in discussions about the state of gender inequalities in the discipline? What is it about our taken-for-granted belief in "merit" that enables us NOT TO SEE how raced and gendered our hiring, promotion, and review practices are? Or perhaps "transparency" itself is the problem, this idea that we can see through to the essence of what a "thing" really is--whether that "thing" is a data-set, an interview transcript, a page from the archive, or a job candidate--if we could only remove that which obscures our vision. Perhaps the real crux of the problem is the assumption that what blocks our view comes from without, rather than from within. Perhaps what we really need is more sober reflection. And a simple admission: that if we wanted to see without blinders, we could.

Lee Ann Fujii
University of Toronto

Post Reply