LET THE DEANS SPEAK: DECANAL PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL RECRUITMENT PRACTICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the critical role academic deans play in universities (Del Favero, 2006; Dunning, Durham, Aksu, & Lange, 2007; Jackson, 2004), most of what we know about the Canadian deanship we know from an institutional perspective, including our understanding of the recruitment and selection process (Lavigne, 2018). This study explores how successful decanal candidates experience their recruitment processes, how these experiences inform their decision making within that process, and how the process can be improved to support the success of a new dean. Multiperspectival Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to gather data about the recruitment process from a variety of directly related groups. Provosts, deans, and search firm representatives participated in this study. Each study participant had been involved in a recent decanal recruitment and selection process in one form or another. Eight of the 13 participants were sitting deans. \n\nParticipants all agreed that the search firm is central to the experience of candidates in a decanal search. Provosts, search firm representatives, and candidates alike confirmed that one of the firm’s most important roles, in addition to their support of the search committee in the first stages of position profile and job description development, is initial outreach to candidates. Provosts also highlighted the important role of the search committee, although deans and search firm representatives did not always agree. Search politics, and their influence on the conduct and experience of a search were highlighted in various forms by all participants. The pivotal role of the provost was also noted.\n \nBy expanding upon Harvey et al.’s (2013) Reference Point Theory it became possible to further our understanding of how search firm representatives and other actors influence a decanal candidate’s decision making within a search. The resultant findings have several important implications for policy, practice, and theory. Given the importance candidates place on search firm representatives and the influence they have on the decisions candidates make within the search process, it is important for institutions to consider alignment between the philosophy of a firm and that of the hiring college, faculty, or wider institution. Institutions and provosts in particular also need to be sure that search firms have access to all of the details, pleasant or otherwise, about both the hiring college or faculty and the decanal position itself. A well-informed search firm representative can more accurately explain the position to candidates as they move through the search. A well-informed candidate can make better-informed decisions as part of that search. In future, including the perspectives of individuals beyond Western Canadian institutions would provide further insights into the decanal recruitment process on a national scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.209 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".