Appointment procedure for non-professorial teaching staff

The sheer number of appointments of non-professorial teaching staff means that the University of Tübingen’s Gender Equality Office focuses its systematic monitoring of equal opportunities by ensuring there is a gender equality representative to support the appointment procedures for the following:

• academic council positions (temporary and permanent),
• permanent E 13-15 positions,
• temporary E 13-15 positions which may be made permanent, and
• temporary E 13-15 positions in key areas of development at the University. Key areas currently include “Artificial Intelligence,” which cuts across several disciplines. Unfortunately, women remain severely under-represented in this field, which with its enormous grants and potential for development offers scope for action. Therefore, there is also a responsibility to actively fight this imbalance.

The gender equality representative furthermore retains the right to engage actively in any recruitment process in accordance with her rights under LHG and therefore has to be informed about all job advertisements at an early stage.
Most other appointment procedures are supported passively. In other words, only statistical data about the process is collected. This includes the number of applications for a job, the number of people who are interviewed or who are placed on the shortlist (in each case, broken down by gender) and finally the gender of the person who is appointed. Please report the data on this to the Gender Equality Office once the appointment is made.

Members of the University who are responsible for appointments relating to any of the above positions are advised to use the following procedure. If it is unclear whether a job fits in one of the stated categories, please consult the Gender Equality Office.

1. The legal position under the LHG as described above means that upcoming/planned recruitment processes in these areas must be reported by email to the Gender Equality Office and the faculty’s equality representative before advertising.
2. The Gender Equality Office and the faculty’s equality representative will then establish who takes charge of gender equality representation and provides ongoing support for the process, and inform the person who is responsible for the appointment.
3. The gender equality representative checks whether the wording of the advertisement is formulated broadly enough and whether the deadline for applications and the publication/announcement of the vacancy are extensive enough. Then, the gender equality representative informs the person who is responsible for the appointment about the result.
4. After the deadline for applications, the person who is responsible for the appointment allows the gender equality representative to inspect the application documents and involves them in the selection of candidates for interview.
5. The gender equality representative takes part in the interview if she believes this is necessary.
6. If she wants, the gender equality representative may also take part in selection discussions where it is decided who will be offered the position.
7. The gender equality representative passes on the data for monitoring equal opportunities to the Gender Equality Office:
   • Minimum requirements under the cascade model
   • Number of applications
   • Number of people invited for interview
   • Result of selection
   • Where necessary, also notes on the process (e.g. reasons why female applicants were unsuccessful or why the targets set for the cascade model could not be met)
8. The Gender Equality Office gives the HR department the opinion of the gender equality representative about the appointment procedure and informs the faculty’s equality representative.

Constitutionally, all those involved in making an appointment are obliged to avoid any gender discrimination. Guidance is given below on how to ensure a gender-sensitive appointment procedure:

1. The job advertisement must be broad enough in scope for the number of potential applicants not to be too drastically limited from the start.
2. The advertisement must be publicized/published widely enough for as many potential applicants as possible to become aware of it.
3. Following receipt of the applications, they should be checked to see whether the ratio of female applicants meets the ratio of women at the required qualification level (graduate, doctorate or post-doctoral student in that discipline) – and therefore the minimum requirements under the cascade model. The relevant data can be found further down this page or, if more nuanced data are required, may be requested from the Gender Equality Office.
4. The number of female academics invited for an interview should at least match the ratio of women who apply.
5. During the recruitment process, all those involved are aware of the risk that selection on basis of merit can be impaired by gender bias.
6. On conclusion of the process, the data for monitoring equal opportunities are compiled. The data can then be used for further analysis of equal opportunities, e.g. presenting equal opportunities in the discipline for a commitment discussion with the President’s Office or for a report from a collaborative research center (CRC) to the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Compliance with equal opportunities when making appointments is monitored by measures which include the gathering of the following data.

• See Minimum requirements under the cascade model

• Number of applications
• Number of people invited for interview
• Result of selection
• Possibly also notes on the proces

Minimum equal opportunities policy requirements or guide values applied to scientific research appointments stipulate the ratio of women that meets the constitutional imperative of equal opportunities for women and men. This is determined using the cascade model.
The cascade model specifies that the objectives for the ratio of women among academic staff is guided by the ratio of women who have the necessary qualification for the appointment. This relates to the specific discipline, so as to avoid having unachievable targets in disciplines with a low proportion of women. For disciplines with a high proportion of women, the opposite is true – the guide values are above parity, i.e. above 50%. This avoids giving men greater opportunity to achieve the next career level than women, which would undermine selection on basis of merit.
The cascade model is not only used by the German Research Foundation, it is also enshrined in the Baden-Württemberg State University Law. It is not a new development for the University of Tübingen, since it was in fact developed in Tübingen in the 1980s and enshrined in Senate policy in 1988. Since then, it has been the core of the University of Tübingen’s equal opportunities strategy.
Minimum requirements / guide values for
positions with a degree as a required qualification
positions with a doctorate as a required qualification
positions with a habilitation as a required qualification

The German Constitution establishes an active mission for all members of public bodies (and hence all University members):
Article 3(2) of the German Constitution states: “Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.”
The fact that this is an active mission is underscored by the special importance the legislature gives to equal opportunities. Equal opportunities must be strived for until parity is reached –this means that appropriate appointments must be made up to parity for the respective qualification level across the entire University of Tübingen.
The ratio of the values from the cascade model concerning parity is derived from this: up to parity (the respective career level of the University), the active mission – which also justifies active equal opportunities measures – applies, as long as other individuals are not directly disadvantaged.
The guide value from the cascade model provides discipline-related information about the actual ratio of women at each qualification level of the FRG. Minimum requirements for appointments can firstly be derived from this: if the minimum value corresponds to the personnel level of the discipline at qualification level, statistically it can be assumed that there are equal opportunities in the jobs. In addition, the value offers an opportunity to recognize possible gender biases from the ratio of applications or invitations in specific recruitment proceedings, and potentially correcting this.
The bare minimum we require (from the cascade) is parity: to achieve equality in the medium term, appointments will need to exceed this level within a reasonable period, as otherwise the process of adjusting the life and career opportunities of the genders takes an excessively long time. Above and beyond parity, the value from the cascade model provides orientation as to whether equal opportunities are maintained over the transition from one career stage to the next.
Important: only the value from the cascade model expresses discipline-related equal opportunities. Even if the ratio of female students is traditionally very high in some disciplines, it cannot therefore be assumed that women may be disadvantaged, for example, at professorship level once a ratio of 50% is achieved – this would individually disproportionately increase the opportunities of men of receiving a professorship. Until the University achieves parity at one qualification level, efforts must be made in disciplines with a high ratio of women to achieve this share at the next level as well, thereby offsetting disciplines with lower female representation. If the ratio of women appears to be too high at higher qualification levels this should instead start at the next-lowest career levels, e.g. by promotional measures, to increase the proportion of men there and thus influence the guide values.

Research positions should be filled on the principle of selection on basis of merit. Assessment of the academic excellence of applicants is therefore the key criterion for selection in an appointment process.
So, the academic qualification must be assessed as objectively and factually as possible. However, as they consist of various elements, such as publication output, teaching experience or attracting outside funding – aspects that are firstly difficult to standardize and secondly can be weighted differently – assessment is prone to gender bias.
Gender bias means the systematic distortions which arise from society’s gender stereotypes, internalized role models, and gender-specific prejudices. These subconsciously affect how we look at others, and this can lead to flawed decisions. Studies show that resumés, research applications and scientific publications are assessed differently depending on whether they are submitted with a male or female name. Both men and women rate the performance of men more highly than that of women. Furthermore, in the case of joint authorships, success tends to be credited to male authors rather than female, and the same behavior is viewed positively in a man and negatively in a woman.
So in our society there are gender-specific differences in how the academic performance of applicants is assessed. We all tend to evaluate the performance of women more critically than that of men, or put another way: what men do is more likely to be regarded as brilliant, even if it is comparable or even identical to what women do. Therefore, anyone who is involved in selection processes such as for a job must constantly examine their own views for any prejudices.
How we look at disadvantages that have affected female applicants in their academic career as a result of undertaking family care duties is also relevant. Due consideration should be paid to family leave when assessing performance. This basically also applies to male applicants, however as a rule women still bear the greater share of caring, even in families where men also participate – a situation which studies show worsened still more during the Coronavirus pandemic.
In disciplines where men predominate, homosocial cooptation also plays a part. Homosocial cooptation is when members of a social network tend to recruit new members because they are similar to themselves, and as a result this favors same-sex support relationships. Thus, men have a greater chance of receiving support, and women less so. This also occurs in the informal networks that are crucial in a scientific career and determine the renown of academics in the scientific community.
Therefore, women face a fundamentally different situation to men when applying for a job. They have to prove their personal achievements in the context of these discriminatory factors. So it is important that all those who assume responsibility for appointments recognize these factors, in order to avoid them influencing decisions.

Questions that are not permitted in an interview
The questions asked in an interview must relate to the job. Therefore, any questions that are not connected with the position are not permitted.
These include, for example, questions relating to the family, such as whether a candidate is pregnant, about family planning and about how child care could be managed alongside the job. It is also not permitted to ask questions about whether a candidate’s parents need care, therefore this must not be asked.
Highly personal questions, such as about sexual orientation and religion, are also not permitted. You also must not ask about ethnic origin or age, as this could result in discrimination under Germany’s German General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).
Likewise you must not ask about membership of a union or of a political party.
It is also not permitted to ask questions about the existence of any handicap or disability. Candidates also do not have to provide information about the state of their health, provided they are capable of doing the work.
Candidates do not have to answer inadmissible questions truthfully. If the individual rights of the candidate are harmed by asking inadmissible questions, employers may even be liable to pay compensation.

Questions that are permitted in an interview
In order to ensure that the need for both quality assurance and equal opportunities are met, it is important that all candidates are treated the same and are provided with the same conditions. All candidates should be given the same information before the interview. Key questions should be agreed in advance by a selection committee and presented to all the candidates in the same way. This is especially relevant to questions about gender-related aspects in research and teaching and about under-representation of men and women in the discipline.