Sample Rubric to Assess Standalone Statements on Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB)

Rubrics are an effective mechanism to support the equitable evaluation of candidates for faculty positions. The sample rubric, below, is a template for search committees to use in this process. It is a guide, and should be adapted to specific searches as appropriate given departmental and disciplinary expertise. 

For searches seeking to create a rubric that assesses the full application dossier (with contributions to DEIB integrated), please refer to this OFEW webpage. 

Considerations for Creating a Rubric

Selection criteria

Rubrics used in faculty searches should clearly define specific criteria for rating applicants. The rubric for each search should be tailored to match the specific selection criteria for the search as well as the description of the position in the job advertisement. Consistency and transparency help ensure shared understanding by committee members and other reviewers. Please refer to the search guide for more guidance on developing selection criteria.

Scoring system

Search committees have found it useful to assign numerical scores to each section of their rubric. This is helpful in identifying and analyzing specific areas of agreement or disagreement as the committee discusses each candidate. The sample template below suggest assigning an equal points value to each section (with a score from 1 to 5 for each). Some committees may, however, decide that one section or another should be weighted more heavily. Or, committees may decide that a different scoring system for each section more accurately reflects their departmental or disciplinary needs. What is most important is being intentional and explicit about the use and weighting of the system, having agreement about the evidence reviewers will use to assign the scores, and ensuring a shared understanding of what overall constitutes a particular score for a given category.

Calibration exercise

Calibration exercises assist search committees in using rubrics equitably, consistently, and reliably across all applicants. To best make use of a rubric, we strongly suggest conducting a calibration exercise in advance of reviewing the entire candidate pool. Search committees in the past have found the following calibration exercise useful:

  1. Create a rubric for use in the particular search, including selection criteria, scores, and definitions.

  2. Discuss ahead of time the kinds of evidence that could motivate low, medium, or high scores.

  3. Select a random sample of 5 - 7 statements (or dossiers) from the applicant pool, redacted for candidate name.

  4. Apply the rubric to the statements (or dossiers), with each committee member scoring the statements separately.

  5. Analyze the scores assigned to each statement (or dossier) across all categories and by all committee members.

  6. Discuss interpretations and discrepancies between reviewer scores.

  7. Recalibrate the scoring/assessment system as needed.

  8. Apply the agreed upon rubric to the entire applicant pool.

Sample rubric to assess standalone statements on contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging

The sample rubric, below, is a template for search committees to use for assessing candidate contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) in research, teaching, and service. It is a guide, and should be adapted to specific searches as appropriate given departmental or disciplinary expertise. While developed to support the assessment of standalone statements on contributions to DEIB, the template may also be used to assess contributions to DEIB across the entire application dossier (e.g., as discussed within research, teaching, and service statements). 

Knowledge about Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging [5 points max]

Score

Examples

1 - 2

Little to no evidence of awareness of DEIB issues in higher education or their field

  • Little expressed knowledge of, or experience with, dimensions of diversity that result from different identities. Defines diversity only in terms of different areas of study or different nationalities, but doesn't discuss gender or ethnicity/race. Discusses diversity in vague terms, such as "diversity is important for science." May state having had little experience with these issues because of lack of exposure, but then not provide any evidence of having informed themselves. Or may discount the importance of diversity.

  • Little demonstrated awareness of underrepresentation, or of differential experiences, of particular groups in higher education or in their discipline. May use vague statements such as "the field of History definitely needs more women" without offering further examples or specifics.

  • Seems not to be aware of, or understand the personal challenges that underrepresented individuals face in academia, or feel any personal responsibility for helping to create an equitable and inclusive environment for all. For example, may state that it's better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at particular individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.

3

Some evidence of awareness, but falls short of significant knowledge base or deep interest

  • Has some knowledge of demographic data related to diversity and awareness of its importance.

  • Shows some understanding of challenges faced by individuals who are underrepresented and the need for everyone to work to create an equitable and inclusive environment for all.

  • Comfort discussing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging related issues

4 - 5

Clear and deep understanding of dimensions of DEIB in higher education

  • Clear knowledge of, experience with, and interest in dimensions of diversity that result from different identities, such as ethnic, socioeconomic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural differences. This understanding can result from personal experiences as well as an investment in learning about the experiences of those with identities different from their own. 

  • Is aware of demographic data related to diversity in higher education. Discusses the underrepresentation of particular groups and the consequences for higher education or for the discipline.

  • Comfort discussing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging related issues (including distinctions and connections between diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging). 

  • Understands the challenges faced by underrepresented individuals, and the need for all students and faculty to work to create an equitable and inclusive environment for all.

  • Discusses diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging as core values that every faculty member should actively contribute to.

Track Record in Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging [5 points max]

Score

Examples

1 - 2

Describes few or no past efforts in any detail

  • Participated in no specific activities, or only one or two limited activities (limited in terms of time, investment, or role).

  • Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement (for example, "I always invite and welcome students from all backgrounds to participate in my research lab, and in fact have mentored several women." Mentoring women scientists may be an important part of an established track record but it would be less significant if it were one of the only activities undertaken and it wasn't clear that the candidate actively conducted outreach to encourage women to join the lab). 

  • Descriptions of activities are brief, vague, nominal, or peripheral (“I was on a committee on diversity for a year”).

3

Some evidence of past efforts, but not extensive enough to merit a high score

  • Evidence of active participation in a single activity, but less clear that there is an established track record.

  • Limited participation at the periphery in numerous activities, or participation in only one area, such as their research to the exclusion of teaching and service.

  • In describing mentoring of underrepresented students, gives some detail about  specific strategies for effective mentoring, or awareness of the barriers underrepresented students face and how to incorporate the ideas into their mentoring.

4 - 5

Sustained track record of varied efforts to promote DEIB in teaching, research, or service

  • Describes multiple activities in depth, with detailed information about both their role in the activities and the outcomes. Activities may span research, teaching and service, and could include applying their research skills or expertise to investigating diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.

  • Consistent track record that spans multiple years (for example, applicants for assistant professor positions might describe activities undertaken or participated in as an undergraduate, graduate student and postdoctoral scholar)

  • Roles taken were significant and appropriate for career stage (e.g., a candidate who is already an assistant professor may have developed and tested pedagogy for an inclusive classroom and learning environment, while a current graduate student may have volunteered for an extended period of time for an organization or group that seeks to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in science). 

  • Organized or spoken at workshops or other events (depending on career stage) aimed at increasing others' understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging as one aspect of their track record.

Plans for Advancing Diversity, Equity,  Inclusion, and Belonging [5 points max]

Score

Examples

1 - 2

No personal plans to advance DEIB

  • Vague or no statements about what they would do at Berkeley if hired. May even feel doing so would be the responsibility of someone else.

  • Describes only activities that are already the minimum expectation of Berkeley faculty (e.g., being willing to supervise students of any gender or ethnic identity).

  • Explicitly states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and “treat everyone the same.”

3

Some ideas about advancing DEIB, but not much detail

  • Mentions plans or ideas but more is expected for their career stage.  Plans or ideas lacking in detail or clear purpose (for example, if "outreach" is proposed, who is the specific target, what is the type of engagement, and what are the expected outcomes? What are the specific roles and responsibilities of the faculty member?)

4 - 5

Clear and detailed plans for advancing DEIB

  • Identifies existing programs they would get involved with, with a level of proposed involvement commensurate with career stage (a tenured faculty member would be expected to commit to more involvement than a new assistant professor would).

  • Clearly formulates new ideas for advancing equity and inclusion at Berkeley and within their field, through their research, teaching, and/or service. Level of proposed involvement commensurate with career level (for example, a new assistant professor may plan to undertake one major activity within the department over the first couple of years, conduct outreach to hire a diverse group of students to work in their lab, seek to mentor several underrepresented students, and co-chair a subcommittee or lead a workshop for a national conference. A new tenured faculty member would be expected to have more department, campus-wide, and national impact, and show more leadership).

  • Convincingly expresses intent, with examples, to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging within the department/school/college and also their field.