An anonymised application leaves out information that could unfairly influence a provider’s decision.
Research outside of teacher training has shown that anonymised applications can help reduce bias and increase opportunities for under-represented groups. The Civil Service uses anonymised applications.
Previous research by UCAS in this area did not have clear results. One finding was that it would take effort for higher education authorities (HEIs) to anonymise applications and add information back in later.
This new research is a first step into investigating whether anonymous applications could work within our service.
What we researched
When they receive an application, providers typically check that the candidate has:
- shown basic literacy skills
- written enough
- expressed themselves adequately
- put care into what they’ve written
They may reject the application if it does not meet these standards. Some providers describe this as ‘sifting’ applications.
Providers usually combine this sifting with choosing which candidates to invite for interview, often known as ‘shortlisting’.
We wanted to find out if an anonymised application contained enough information for users to sift and shortlist it.
Who we researched with
We carried out research sessions with 5 school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) providers.
How we did the research
We created a sample application that excluded:
- name
- date of birth
- address
- contact details
- degree institution
- reference name and contact details
- disability
- criminal record and professional misconduct
We asked providers to review the application.
What we found
We found that:
- an anonymous application could work for sifting and shortlisting
- more information is needed after shortlisting
- references would work better for anonymous applications if they were only required after an offer had been accepted
Sifting and shortlisting anonymous applications
On initial review of the application, none of the participants noticed that any information had been left out.
This suggests that an anonymised application could work. However, in a research setting it’s hard to get a participant to review a fake application as if it’s real.
When questioned further, participants said that the majority of the removed information was not required to sift applications. The exception was the criminal record and professional misconduct details.
Some participants felt that the detail of references could be withheld until after an offer had been accepted. Others felt that there may be value in seeing references when shortlisting applications, as they could help providers decide whether to invite the candidate to interview.
Information needed after after shortlisting
Participants said that applications cannot remain anonymous after shortlisting. They need the candidate’s name and contact details to invite them to interview.
They also said that they would probably want to include the candidate’s name when they send the application to their partner schools as a PDF. They do this after deciding to shortlist a candidate for interview.
In addition, providers will find out details of the candidate’s qualifications at interview if they bring their certificates with them.
We have created a spreadsheet showing when providers need information and why they need it at each stage.
Changing when references are given
References can include information which could lead to unfair decisions. Participants appeared comfortable with the compromise of showing only:
- what the referee said about the candidate
- that the referee knows of no reason that the candidate should not work with children
We could also consider asking for references as a condition of an offer, instead of at the start of the application process. This is a common approach in recruitment outside of teacher training, but would require a change in DfE policy.
This change would help keep applications anonymous and also make it quicker and easier for candidates to make their initial application. However, we’d need to do research to find out more about how it would affect providers and ensure that students were not put at risk.