Inclusive Hiring Toolkit

AEvaluation criteria & scoring

Used at every stage

• A written score sheet (adapted from a University of Michigan template) rates scientific contribution, service, potential to enrich the institute's community, contribution to diversity, equity and inclusion, teaching and mentoring.
• An explicit “add for the IEE” prompt asks which perspective, competence or experience a candidate would bring that the institute does not yet have. Evaluators also note career barriers a candidate may have faced.
• Judgements are qualitative. No journal-based or other quantitative metrics are used, in line with DORA, CoARA and the Better Science Initiative. Academic age and unequal starting opportunities are taken into account.

• A1Evaluation score sheetCriteria with example evidence, the “add for the IEE” field, and a grade counterXLSX · 28 KB
• A2Overall procedureThe full written procedure, from review groups to the shortlistDOCX · 132 KB
• A3Hiring process descriptionWrite-up presented at the faculty meeting (German & English)DOCX · 40 KB

BDiversity-aware sourcing

Before the application deadline

• Before the deadline, we actively scouted potential candidates from underrepresented groups and recorded them in a shared list. Deliberate outreach broadened the pool, instead of leaving it to whoever happened to apply.
• Around 20 candidates were approached across the two searches.

• B1Scouting list templateName, institution, contact, who reaches out, why chosen, notesXLSX · 16 KB

The completed scouting list is withheld for data-protection reasons.

CPrivilege-aware initial review

First review round only

• We extended the “Lausanne model”, in which women and men are first reviewed in separate groups, with a third group: candidates who grew up with comparatively few academic and economic opportunities.
• This group is defined transparently from Human Development Index scores (1990) and research capacity (PhD-level researchers per million inhabitants).
• The grouping applies only in the first round. There are no quotas on the shortlist or in any later step. The committee also pledges to attend to intersecting dimensions such as disability, racialisation and LGBTQ+ identity.

• C1Country categoriesHDI and R&D data with the resulting opportunity categoriesXLSX · 800 KB

DBias-aware committee process

Individual review, discussion and shortlist

• Each 13-person committee includes professors (1–2 from other institutes), Mittelbau members and early-career researchers, all with equal votes.
• Every member completes two half-days of DEI / anti-bias training and an orientation on process, confidentiality and data protection.
• Conflicts of interest are declared on a five-level scale, and the closest ties exclude a member from that candidate. Each application is read by three people, including at least one professor and one early-career researcher.
• A trained, neutral moderator leads the all-day discussion. Speaking order runs from the lowest to the highest conflict-of-interest level and career stage.

• D1Conflict-of-interest levelsThe five-level declaration scale (0–4) and how it is usedDOCX · 20 KB
• D2Orientation slidesProcess, timeline, rights and duties, the review-group pledge, data securityPDF · 76 KB
• D3DEI / anti-bias trainingTwo modules by Dr. Bontu Lucie Guschke: racism at universities (structural, interactional and intersectional perspectives), and meritocracy, excellence and bias blockers. Contact the trainer for materials.External
• D4Inclusive-meeting guideAn adopted third-party reference on inclusive-meeting good practice; not redistributed hereReference
• D5Good-practice one-pagerShort guidance for committee members on fairness, confidentiality, bias and communicationDOCX · 24 KB

EStructured interviews

Two-day on-site visit

• Every candidate completes the same standardised teaching assignment (see F3).
• Interviewers use a pre-agreed set of questions, identical for all candidates within a search, and a structured evaluation tool. Judgements then rest on consistent evidence rather than gut feeling.

• E1Interview questions (Mathematical & Computational Ecology)13 questions on research, collaboration, teaching, mentoring, DEI and infrastructureDOCX · 24 KB
• E2Interview questions (Conservation Biology)The same structure, adapted to the fieldDOCX · 24 KB
• E3Interview evaluation toolOne sheet per candidate: rating and evidence for each criterionXLSX · 72 KB

FInclusive candidate experience

From invitation to feedback

• Candidates get early, transparent information about format, expectations and logistics. They are explicitly invited to share any needs: accessibility, dietary requirements, prayer or lactation rooms, all-gender toilets.
• Name tags show names and roles. A welcome pack gives directions, and candidates can view the interview rooms beforehand. Travel, accommodation and visa costs are covered, and international candidates are met on arrival.
• The audience and committees are reminded of common biases and asked to engage with every candidate. All institute members can feed back to the committee through their status group.

• F1InvitationShortlist notification, format overview and a first request for personal needsDOCX · 16 KB
• F2Detailed information & needsTalk and interview format, information request, travel arrangementsDOCX · 16 KB
• F3Teaching assignmentThe standardised 10-minute teaching segment, identical for allDOCX · 16 KB
• F4Interview agendaAgenda cover note: room tour, dress code, food, equipmentDOCX · 16 KB
• F5Welcome pack & directionsArrival, expenses, presentations, breaks, building accessDOCX · 16 KB
• F6Information for the instituteSymposium announcement and a call for committee members and volunteersDOCX · 16 KB
• F7Feedback by status groupHow every institute member can channel feedback, with a reminder about biasDOCX · 12 KB

All candidate data has been removed. Placeholders in [BRACKETS] mark what to fill in.