Read on Twitter
Unconscious bias training scrapped.
There is q.strong evidence that "unconscious bias" is significant in unequal opportunities
But there is an absence of evidence in the UK on whether/not past training makes any significant difference. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/education-55309923?__twitter_impression=true
There is q.strong evidence that "unconscious bias" is significant in unequal opportunities
But there is an absence of evidence in the UK on whether/not past training makes any significant difference. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/education-55309923?__twitter_impression=true
I don't think there is evidence it works - or I haven't seen it.
Claims that there is evidence it doesn't work are also much overstated.
There are very few rigorous studies of it at all, and especially few in the UK. (Most/almost all of the literature is from the US)
Claims that there is evidence it doesn't work are also much overstated.
There are very few rigorous studies of it at all, and especially few in the UK. (Most/almost all of the literature is from the US)
It seems fair to say don't make something to respond mandatory unless and until you have evidence.
There is also a compelling public policy argument that a high priority should be given to testing what could work and what doesn't work in this area *because of evidence*
There is also a compelling public policy argument that a high priority should be given to testing what could work and what doesn't work in this area *because of evidence*
There is undeniably strong evidence in the UK that if you change the name on a CV (and nothing else) the interview rate drops for some more obviously "ethnic" names than for the same CV with a different name.
Only 2 hypotheses about CV evidence?
(1) unconscious bias is important factor.If overt prejudices reduce & anti-discrimination norms advance (as they have), unconscious bias may matter more in unfair outcomes
(2) this is still conscious bias/prejudice but people fib about that
(1) unconscious bias is important factor.If overt prejudices reduce & anti-discrimination norms advance (as they have), unconscious bias may matter more in unfair outcomes
(2) this is still conscious bias/prejudice but people fib about that
The most famous test (IAT) seems problematic and flawed in many ways. It doesnt seem to be measuring the thing we should care about in a stable or useful way.
But that's different to claiming evidence shows training doesnt work
I can't find that either https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1308028127747211266?s=19
But that's different to claiming evidence shows training doesnt work
I can't find that either https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1308028127747211266?s=19
An earlier EHRC study found only one (un-rigorous) study in the UK at all.
This lack of evidence itself (in my view) tells us something important (revealed preferences). Most organisations that do this did not prioritise or invest in evaluations of what they were doing.
This lack of evidence itself (in my view) tells us something important (revealed preferences). Most organisations that do this did not prioritise or invest in evaluations of what they were doing.
The absence of evidence suggests to me that "be seen to be doing something" was probably as or more important a motive than "find out how to ensure fair chances/how to eradicate unconscious bias" (which is a shame, given the clear evidence it is probably pretty important).
If you are interested in equal opportunities
* press those undertaking training in this area to evaluate it properly
* propose practical ways to challenge the CV discrimination gap (and to monitor if its closing).
Unless you were only here for the Culture War (on either team)
* press those undertaking training in this area to evaluate it properly
* propose practical ways to challenge the CV discrimination gap (and to monitor if its closing).
Unless you were only here for the Culture War (on either team)
I am agnostic about the training. I don't know enough about what it does. And I am concerned about the "be seen to do something but don't worry too much about finding out if it works.
But critics of the training need their response to the CV evidence https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1307996578238562304?s=19
But critics of the training need their response to the CV evidence https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1307996578238562304?s=19
CV studies prove unfair outcomes for imaginary people making hypothetical applications
If you were an org committed to fair chances, should you say yes/no to regularly testing this effect in real world (eg in grad recruitment round) to use granular evidence to change that?
If you were an org committed to fair chances, should you say yes/no to regularly testing this effect in real world (eg in grad recruitment round) to use granular evidence to change that?
I'd like to see this done in the real world. Ideally institutionalised over time. (Eg, you could put dummy proxy CVs - just the names changed - into a real graduate recruitment process at a law firm. Could get a fairness/bias read-out, by sector, by org, by team, year on year)
This has an advantage over 'we sent everybody on the training', is that it tests progress.
Hypothesis: knowledge of selectors that experiment/scrutiny taking place should increase consciousness of need to avoid unconscious bias (to benefit of imaginary & real candidates alike)
Hypothesis: knowledge of selectors that experiment/scrutiny taking place should increase consciousness of need to avoid unconscious bias (to benefit of imaginary & real candidates alike)
Could we get consensus on
- this this principle matters (fair chances)
- that a commitment to the principle should include a willingness to find out how well you are doing
- that there would be a rigorous way to find out if you've got there now, or have got more work to do.
- this this principle matters (fair chances)
- that a commitment to the principle should include a willingness to find out how well you are doing
- that there would be a rigorous way to find out if you've got there now, or have got more work to do.
So there is an offer: we don't need to make whether this training is any good or not a totem. (Nobody actually knows).
Is everyone talking about evidence on this willing to support calls to rigorously test the evidence about recruitment bias itself - and whether it is reducing?
Is everyone talking about evidence on this willing to support calls to rigorously test the evidence about recruitment bias itself - and whether it is reducing?
One fair litmus test for Race Commission (reports February)
Does it recognise that the CV bias studies are clear evidence of a problem (universally acknowledged) and, the crucial bit, propose plan to act that would not only scrutinise this but change it? https://twitter.com/Drtonysewell/status/1338776249406205953?s=19
Does it recognise that the CV bias studies are clear evidence of a problem (universally acknowledged) and, the crucial bit, propose plan to act that would not only scrutinise this but change it? https://twitter.com/Drtonysewell/status/1338776249406205953?s=19
