Webinar
Enhancing Grant Management
Schedule a Demo View Interactive Tour Enhancing Grant Management Community Brands’ “Association Trends Study 2024” sheds light on priorities and challenges facing
Unlock The Secrets to a Fair, Non-bias, Scholarship Program
Unlock the secrets to a fair non-bias scholarship program
Creating a fair, non-biased scholarship program is crucial to ensuring that every applicant has an equal opportunity to succeed. There are a significant number of moving parts when managing and operating a scholarship program but we can ensure a fair non-bias selection process by incorporating three key components:
- Randomize which submissions are evaluated by which reviewers.
- Redaction of personal information from review team.
- Normalized results to account for individual judging trends such as those that evaluate higher or lower than average.
At its core, these three elements ensure that each candidate will be reviewed on the merits of their submission without any unintended personal bias by an evaluator or their own personal selection trends. Incorporating these elements not only enhances the integrity of the selection process but also help to eliminate unconscious biases, ensuring that the most deserving candidates are recognized and rewarded.
Secret #1: Submission Randomization
Creating a fair, non-biased framework is essential for any evaluation process, especially those involving diverse applicant pools such as scholarships. Reviewr employs several strategies to ensure fairness and objectivity:
- Randomized Review Assignments: Reviewr can randomly assign applications to reviewers. This method helps prevent any preconceived notions or biases that reviewers might have towards certain candidates, promoting a more equitable evaluation process. There are many ways to structure a review and selection workflow that can still rely on a form of randomization, if a workflow consists of phases, committees, categories, etc.
- The key component to randomization of the submission to evaluator pairing is first to identify the workload capacity of reviewers and then identify how many times each individual submitter must be reviewed to get a proper gauge of the quality of the application.
- For example, we may decide that review teams should not evaluate more than 20 people due to time constraints, but at the same time, each applicant must get reviewed by 5 different evaluators.
- Within Reviewr, we can just enter these metrics and the system will auto generate the assignments.
These measures are designed to create an environment where all candidates have an equal opportunity to be evaluated fairly, based on their abilities and achievements without the influence of bias or favoritism.
Secret #2: Redaction of personal information
Redacting personal information from scholarship applications during the review process offers several significant benefits, particularly in avoiding personal bias and preventing reviewers from being overwhelmed with irrelevant content. These benefits include:
- Elimination of Personal Bias: Removing personal identifiers such as names, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background helps ensure that reviewers focus solely on the merit of the application. This reduces the risk of unconscious bias influencing decisions based on personal characteristics rather than qualifications and achievements.
- Enhanced Fairness: By ensuring that all applicants are judged based on the same set of criteria, the process becomes more equitable. This helps create a level playing field where applicants are evaluated purely on their merits.
- Focus on Relevant Criteria: Redacting personal information helps reviewers concentrate on the content of the application that directly relates to the scholarship criteria. This prevents extraneous details from distracting reviewers and ensures that decisions are made based on the most pertinent information.
- Improved Objectivity: When personal information is redacted, reviewers are more likely to provide objective assessments. This leads to more consistent and reliable evaluations, as personal details that could sway opinions are removed from the equation.
- Consistency in Review Standards: With personal information redacted, the review process is more standardized. Reviewers are guided to apply the same standards and criteria to all applications, promoting consistency in how applications are assessed.
- Encouragement of Merit-Based Selection: Redacting personal information reinforces the principle of merit-based selection, where applicants are chosen based on their qualifications, achievements, and potential rather than personal attributes or backgrounds.
- Reduction of Reviewer Overload: By stripping away irrelevant personal details, the review process becomes more streamlined. Reviewers can focus on the core components of the application, reducing cognitive load and allowing for more efficient and effective evaluation.
Secret #3 Normalized results
To ensure fairness across different evaluators who may have varying standards of strictness, normalizing results is a critical process. This involves adjusting scores to a common scale and calibrating the assessments across different reviewers. This process reduces the impact of biases and ensures consistent evaluations, no matter who conducts them.
Let us tell you a story. An Ivy League university that we will not mention year after year would have evaluators question why particular candidates were not selected. Those who reviewed the applicant thought they were strong fits and actually one of the highest they evaluated. For the sake of privacy, let’s pretend this evaluator’s name was Bob. Bob, who never scores an applicant greater than 15 evaluated a particular candidate as a 14. Bob later was shocked to hear that this applicant was not selected as it was the highest-rated applicant Bob scored. Looking into the data, it was later identified that because not all applicants were evaluated by all reviewers, some evaluators were scoring people as 25s consistently. While that particular candidate was scored “highly” by Bob’s standards, it was quite low compared to the standards of other evaluators. Here lies the problem – how do we not only identify judging trends by particular evaluators but also take this into account when generating results?
- Standardization Techniques: Implementing statistical methods to adjust scores based on the average stringency or leniency of reviewers. Reviewer’s normalization report will identify each particular judges average score amongst all the applicants they review, and then compare that overall average against a particular candidate to see if that applicant is higher, or lower than how that judge normally scores. We can then create a baseline of “average” and use this averaged baseline in comparison to other judges and applicants.
- Calibration Sessions: Regular meetings where reviewers discuss and align on scoring standards to ensure consistency in how evaluation criteria are applied.
- Feedback Loops: Incorporating feedback from both reviewers and candidates to continuously refine the scoring and normalization processes.
This normalization is vital for maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process, ensuring that all candidates are judged fairly and equitably, irrespective of which reviewers assess their applications.
More To Explore
Webinar
Enhancing Scholarship Management
Schedule a Demo View Interactive Tour Enhancing Scholarship Management Introduction to the Scholarship Landscape and Key Insights The recent findings from Netforum’s
Implement these trends today
