Equity guidelines
From APS Committees focused on creating inclusive physics spaces
These guidelines are intended to improve the effectiveness of award, prize, and fellowship committees in finding the most qualified person from a representative pool of candidates.
Awards and prize criteria
Ensure that the criteria against which the candidate will be judged are specific and, if possible, quantifiable in some way. Clearly list the required application materials, criteria, and how the criteria should be addressed in the application package.
Committees
Compose a committee from a variety of backgrounds and identities. The chair must display effective leadership in communicating the values of inclusion to the rest of the committee and should raise the question of pool diversity with committee members as they work to recruit applicants.
Applicant pools
The chair should communicate priorities and remind the committee of the award or selection criteria. Committee members should solicit applications from qualified people from all backgrounds who might traditionally be overlooked. The chair can solicit input from APS committees focused on expanding participation in physics.
Judging
A judging matrix listing the candidates and all criteria should be disseminated to committee members. Grading against a rubric will help prevent snap judgments, stereotypes, and some other traps that are common errors in the selection process. (More information about possible bias and ways to prevent it can be found in resources on fair evaluation practices.)
It is not advisable for individuals to rank candidates without a rubric, because this can cause unintentional biases based upon gut feelings rather than objective criteria. The leadership of the chair in keeping the process objective and criteria-based is critical. When people have been eliminated as unqualified, ensure that it is because they do not meet the criteria. There are always some intangible or less- quantifiable traits of candidates that should be captured and discussed by the committee, since these can sometimes be the difference between two otherwise similarly qualified candidates. If the chair assembles rankings based on scores of individual committee members, often a lower tier of candidates emerges that can be eliminated.
Final decision
The committee and its chair should feel confident that they have conducted a fair and impartial evaluation of a highly-qualified applicant pool. To identify a clear winner or winners, the top tier candidates may be re-evaluated using the established judging rubric. The chair should also draft or update a brief document summarizing the process followed by the committee. This summary should be reviewed by unit leadership and passed along to the next chair to ensure continuity and transparency in future selection cycles.
Unit chairs should regularly assess the effectiveness of their committees in broadening participation and seek opportunities to improve selection processes. This may include appointing a designated advocate to promote awareness of best practices among the unit’s executive committee and subcommittees. The advocate’s role would include, ensuring that qualified candidates from a wide range of backgrounds, career stages, sectors, institutions, and experiences are actively considered during the selection process.