Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Scientists in India (South Asian) and Italy (White) are more likely to espouse this view.

  2. P-SV-DJ-18-IN-3265.

  3. B-SV-BN-05-IT-6995.

  4. B-SV-CK-06-US-19391.

  5. B-SV-CS-04-IT-6909.

  6. B-SV-BR-14-UK-13321.

  7. B-SV-DJ-02-US-19169.

  8. P-SB-BN-10-IT.

  9. P-SV-PP-03-IN-3818.

  10. B-SV-NS-25-US-20143.

  11. B-SV-DJ-11-US-19221.

  12. P-SV-CS-03-IT-11523.

  13. B-SV-OR-05-US-18887.

  14. P-SV-CK-16-US-21441. Race indicated as “Other” on the survey.

  15. B-SB-BR-16-US.

  16. B-SV-BR-23-US-19204.

  17. B-SB-NS-12-UK.

  18. B-SV-AU-11-UK-12317.

  19. B-SV-DJ-12-UK-13264.

  20. P-SV-CK-03-UK-17600.

  21. B-SV-BV-08-US-18680.

  22. P-SV-AU-02-UK-18221.

  23. P-SV-NS-21–16,506.

  24. P-SV-NS-21–16,506.

  25. B-SV-NS-22-UK-12297.

  26. B-SV-OR-03-US-20610.

References

  • Blair-Loy, M., & Cech, E. A. (2022). Misconceiving merit: Paradoxes of excellence and devotion in academic science and engineering. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Cole, S., Cole, J. R., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214(4523), 881–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis, G., & Grüning, B. (2020). Gender inequality in precarious academic work: Female adjunct professors in Italy. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., & Cox, W. T. (2017). A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1014–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1989). Entrepreneurial science in the academy: A case of the transformation of norms. Social Problems, 36(1), 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, T. (2024). State anti-DEI laws sow uncertainty in public colleges and universities. Physics Today, 77(4), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). The faculty factor: Reassessing the American academy in a turbulent era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Garcia, G., Koren, E., & Cuellar, M. (2020). Assessing color-neutral racial attitudes of faculty at Hispanic-serving institutions. AERA Open, 6(3), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (2022). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, C. R. (2023). Small Campus, Big Issues: Leading the new diversity, equity, and inclusion committee. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 27(2), 19–35.

  • Hamilton, L. T., & Nielsen, K. (2021). Broke: The racial consequences of underfunding public universities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Hermanowicz, J. C. (2019). The degradation of merit. Society, 56(4), 340–347.

  • Jehn, K., Northcraft, B., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. R. (2017). A fractured profession: Commercialism and conflict in academic science. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. R., & Hermanowicz, J. C. (2017). Peer review: From “sacred ideals” to “profane realities”. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 485–527). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589–617.

  • Kelly, B. T., Gayles, J. G., & Williams, C. D. (2017). Recruitment without retention: A critical case of Black faculty unrest. Journal of Negro Education, 86, 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurup, A., & Raj, A. (2022). Changing patterns of work–life balance of women scientists and engineers in India. Science, Technology and Society, 27(4), 485–501.

  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, N. (2021). Identity capitalists: The powerful insiders who exploit diversity to maintain inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Liera, R. (2020). Equity advocates using equity-mindedness to interrupt faculty hiring’s racial structure. Teachers College Record, 122(9), 1–42.

  • Loder, N. (1999). Gender discrimination ‘undermines science.’ Nature, 402(6760), 337–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 45–71.

  • MacArthur, B. (2021). Truth and beauty in physics and biology. Nature Physics, 17(2), 149–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595.

  • National Science Board, National Science Foundation. (2019). Science and engineering indicators 2020: Science and Engineering Labor Force. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020. NSB-2019–8. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198/. Accessed 15 Jan 2023.

  • Need, A. C., & Goldstein, D. B. (2009). Next generation disparities in human genomics: Concerns and remedies. Trends in Genetics, 25(11), 489–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2009). Attitudes and advocacy: Understanding faculty views on racial/ethnic diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 415–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posselt, J. R. (2014). Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD Admissions. American Journal of Education, 120(4), 481–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posselt, J. (2016). Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Price, M. (2020). Diversity statements divide mathematicians. Science, 367(6475), 239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (2014). The higher education we choose, collectively: Reembodying and repoliticizing choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 917–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S. V., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the unusual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 133–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M. L. (2009) Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Stevens, M. L., & Roksa, J. (2011). The diversity imperative in elite admissions. In L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg (Eds.), Diversity in American higher education: Toward a more comprehensive approach (pp. 63–73). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., Pinn, V. W., Rudick, J., Lawrence, M., & Carlyn, M. (2006). Evaluation of the first 10 years of the Office of Research on Women’s Health at the National Institutes of Health: Selected findings. Journal of Women’s Health, 15(3), 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. New York, NY: Sage Publications.

  • van Dijk, H., Kooij, D., Karanika-Murray, M., De Vos, A., & Meyer, B. (2020). Meritocracy a myth? A multilevel perspective of how social inequality accumulates through work. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3–4), 240–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White-Lewis, D. K. (2020). The facade of fit in faculty search processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2021). Research and development expenditure (% of GDP). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 66–100.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA

    David R. Johnson

  2. Department of Sociology, Catholic University, Washington, DC, USA

    Brandon Vaidyanathan

Authors
  1. David R. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon Vaidyanathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Johnson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, D.R., Vaidyanathan, B. Open to talent? How scientists assess merit and diversity in hiring. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01244-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01244-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation