NorthWest Biosciences (NWB) DTP – Blind Recruitment for Inclusive PhD Admissions

Posted on by Jessie Whaite

Logo for NW Biosciences DTP showing UK map and location of the 4 partnering universities - Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, Lancaster University and Queen's University, Belfast

Objective: Advocating for fairer PhD recruitment by addressing unconscious bias, increasing access for underrepresented groups, and fostering trust through blind recruitment to highlight research potential Activity: Using anonymised forms and structured shortlisting reduces biases and enables assessors to focus on candidates' research experience and motivation. This promotes a fairer selection and recruitment processed and encourages diverse talent. Impact: More innovative research outcomes and improved assessor confidence have increased applicant trust in recruitment. Supervisors now prioritise merit, and awareness of unconscious bias in postgraduate recruitment is growing. Broader Reach: Its anonymised Recruitment Information Form ( RIF) and shortlisting have set a benchmark for fair UK doctoral recruitment, influencing policies and university guidelines. Representatives promote the successful blind recruitment model at EDI panels, demonstrating its effectiveness.


The Challenge

The NorthWest Biosciences (NWB) Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) implemented an anonymised admissions process to tackle systemic biases in PhD recruitment. Historically, applicants from prestigious institutions and those writing in English-dominant styles were advantaged, leading to underrepresentation across gender, nationality, and academic background at both shortlisting and award stages.

Other challenges that have not been fully addressed include a lack of ethnic diversity on interview panels and insufficient demographic data for applicants, which limited the EDI facilitators to monitor outcomes for applicants with disabilities, ethnic minority backgrounds, and LGBTQ+ identities. These gaps complicated equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) assessments and highlight that there are areas where increased monitoring would be beneficial to ensure equity during recruitment.

In line with national initiatives such as Athena SWAN and the Race Equality Charter—and response to institutional feedback—NWB recognised the need for reform. The anonymisation initiative sought to shift focus away from personal identifiers and towards applicants’ research potential and motivation.

The central hypothesis: anonymisation would reduce unconscious bias, widen access for underrepresented groups, and strengthen trust in the transparency and impartiality of admissions—aligning with the principles of UKRI and Athena SWAN.

The Approach

NWB designed a structured admissions framework to minimise bias:

  • Recruitment Information Form (RIF): Standardised applicant data collection via Microsoft Forms, excluding demographics.
  • Centralised redaction: Administrative staff anonymised CVs, transcripts, and personal statements by removing names, gender, nationality, and institutional affiliation.
  • Reference management: References withheld until after shortlisting to avoid undue influence.
  • Structured assessment: Rubrics used to evaluate research experience, academic achievements, and motivation.
  • Final-stage interviews: Re-identification occurred only once candidates were shortlisted. Data was analysed at shortlisting stage and interview to offer stage to monitor processes and that biases did not appear at this stage.
  • Stakeholder engagement: Management, administrative staff, supervisors, and student representatives co-designed the process and reviewed EDI data.

Beyond admissions, NWB embedded equity into the doctoral experience through cohort induction, structured research training, and the Professional Internship Placement Scheme (PIPS).

Measuring Success

Outcomes

  • Gender balance: Maintained parity across ~600 annual applications, with a slight female majority aligned with sector norms. Analysis confirmed that gender outcomes remained consistent across all stages (application → interview → award), suggesting no systemic gender bias in selection.
  • Confidence in fairness: Applicants and assessors reported increased trust in the impartiality of admissions.
  • International applicants: The data revealed attrition between application and both interview and award stages, indicating bias against international applicants. This was attributed to the UKRI-imposed 30% cap on international student numbers and supervisors’ decisions influenced by the quota.
  • Diverse engagement: Sustained high levels of interest across partner institutions.

Evaluation Approach

  • Quantitative: Only gender and home/international status were available for analysis. Ethnicity, disability, and sexuality data were not captured, limiting the scope of EDI evaluation. Gender ratios were consistent, while home vs. international comparisons showed attrition linked to structural caps
  • Qualitative: Feedback from applicants, assessors, and supervisors highlighted greater confidence in fairness and a stronger focus on merit.
  • KPIs: Maintaining gender balance, monitoring international progression, and tracking diversity trends year on year.

Long-Term Impact

  • Awareness and culture change: Greater recognition of unconscious bias fostered a more merit-based recruitment culture.
  • Policy influence: Informed institutional EDI policies and inspired adoption across other doctoral training programmes.
  • National recognition: Showcased as a model of good practice via UKRI forums.
  • Broader dialogue: Stimulated discussion on ethnic and cultural representation in panels and enhanced transparency in admissions.

Lessons Learned

  1. Centralised anonymisation: Effective but resource-intensive—underscoring the need for automated redaction tools. Can only be used in pooled candidate selection in DTPs. PhD applicants applying directly to supervisors cannot be effectively anonymised.
  2. RIFs: Successfully standardised applications and reduced reliance on narrative-driven materials prone to bias.
  3. Structural barriers: The 30% cap on international students required more transparent communication to prevent unintended disadvantage.
  4. Panel diversity: While gender balance was achieved, greater ethnic and cultural representation remains essential.
  5. Feedback loops: Evaluations must include both successful and unsuccessful applicants to avoid survivor bias.
  6. Data limitations: The inability to analyse ethnicity, disability, and LGBTQ+ data restricted the scope of EDI assessment. Expanding demographic monitoring is essential for future progress.

Next Steps

The NWB DTP’s anonymised admissions strategy is now nationally recognised as a sector model. Core features—anonymised RIFs, centralised redaction, and structured rubrics—have shaped institutional EDI policies and inspired wider adoption.

To strengthen the approach, NWB has:

  • Automated anonymisation within application platforms.
  • Expanded demographic monitoring to include ethnicity, disability, and LGBTQ+ status.
  • Diversified interview panels and enhanced assessor training.
  • Implemented annual evaluations, with outcomes reported to UKRI.
  • Shared resources (templates, rubrics, checklists) to support adoption by other initiatives.

Replicability

This model promotes fairness and transparency by prioritising early planning, stakeholder engagement, and robust assessor training. Institutions should allocate resources for redaction (or automate processes) and build resource banks with templates and evaluation frameworks. Cross-institutional collaboration on EDI practices further strengthens equity in doctoral recruitment.

Further Information: https://www.gla.ac.uk/postgraduate/doctoraltraining/northwestbio/northwestbio/

Related Blogs

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.

Back to blog listing