| Abstract/Notes |
Background: The process for recruiting faculty and faculty administrators can vary from one search to the next depending on the individuals making up the team and the dynamics operating within the team. Several intangibles also work into a recruiting effort such as bias, priorities and vested interests. A fascinating strategy has been developed that integrates group work into the process and by doing so may reduce or even eliminate the intangibles. This strategy uses group work to balance opinions and reduce inherent prejudices between and within the members of the group. In order to control variables in the search process, a cooperative approach was used in searching for a Dean for the College of Chiropractic at Life University and the development of the process recorded for use by future search committees. Objective: A cooperative approach to the academic search process is described. Methods: The Provost selected the chair and met to compose the letter to selected faculty. The search committee consisted of two co-chairs and eight faculty and staff chosen from the various areas within the Doctor of Chiropractic Program (DCP). Applications were solicited through advertisements in professional journals and reviewed by the committee members. The committee members were assigned to one of two groups and each group was divided into two teams (as partners). A data table was developed to list 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses of the applicant. Selection of candidates for interview was made using the overall assessment of strengths and weaknesses (without ranking). Decisions were made by majority vote of the eight members, and in the event of a tie, vote by the senior co- chair was cast. Applications, distributed in sets (4-6 per set), were sent to team members. Opinions based on a rubric were shared with partners. Each group met to present their partners findings rather than their own. For the second review, all four members of the group presented strengths and weaknesses, and there was discussion. A group spokesperson would then speak for the whole about their assessment. The committee then voted whether or not to retain the applicant in the search process. Retained candidates were invited for interviews, and each committee member was present at interviews. In order to provide equal and fair opportunity, the same person asked their question(s) for each candidate. The candidate interview was carried out using the same cooperative strategy, applied to three interactive performance components: a formal closed interview was conducted by the whole search committee; a presentation to an audience consisting of university faculty and staff on a subject chosen by the committee followed by a brief question and answer session; and an informal lunch interview with the committee and the Provost. Following this process, the committee met to reviewed and appraise each of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses with regard to their performance. Discussion:The committee completed their decision process by submitting three candidates along with their strengths and weaknesses (unranked) to the chief academic officer. The final report sent to the Provost for communication to the Board of Trustees with an acceptable recommendation. Using a cooperative learning strategy used in the academic search process is unique, successful, and previously unreported. This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher. |
