Skip to main content

Anonymity

3 – The Application Form and Process

Anonymity

Anonymising applications can promote the EDI of your application process in multiple ways. More diverse applicants may be encouraged to apply if they know their application will be judged on merit, not based on whether they are known by the reviewers or come from specific countries or institutions.

  • It ensures increased equity in the way applications are assessed, by combatting the ‘Matthew Effect’, which describes how people who have privileged backgrounds become more privileged over time and vice versa.

However, there are some drawbacks to anonymisation:

  • Firstly, fully anonymising applications means that barriers people have faced cannot be taken into account and used to boost their application
  • It can also be onerous for applicants and/or staff handling applications to remove identifying information, if they are basing their application on a previous, non-anonymised version of their CV, research proposal, or cover letter
  • For some aspects of an application a reviewer simply needs to know the identity of the applicant

A useful solution is to use a two-stage review process of ‘sequential anonymised-deanonymised review’. Here, there is an initial anonymised review of aspects of the application for which anonymisation makes sense. Once reviewers submit scores on this anonymous part of the application, scores are locked before aspects of the application containing identifying information is released to reviewers.

A two-stage review process can be onerous on the reviewers and those creating and managing the application process if not automated. An automated process ensures that the deanonymised second part of the application is automatically sent to the reviewer upon receipt of their scores/comments on the first anonymous part. Handily, you can use a simple Power Automate tool developed by the CES Transformation Fund team to automate this process.