Skip to main content
University of Washington UW W Logo Human Centered Design & Engineering Wordmark Logo

HCDE Intranet

Conflict of Interest Guidance for Faculty Appointments

Approved October 2019

State law, University of Washington rules, and the UW Faculty code provide clear rules on conflicts of interest for decisions affecting one’s family, decisions involving sexual and romantic relationships, and decisions with financial conflict of interest. See ​UW Executive Order 32​, ​RCW 42.52.020​, and ​RCW 42.52.070​ for relevant rules, as well as F​CG Section 24-50​ for guidance.

As the faculty code notes, “No list of rules can provide direction for all the varying circumstances that may arise; good judgment of individuals is essential.” The purpose of this guidance is to document the collective good judgment of the department on how to handle some potential conflicts of interest as they pertain to appointments to our voting faculty. None of this guidance supercedes the relevant state or university rules.

In general, there are a range of options for participating. These include complete recusal from the process (not participating in the discussion of or voting on any candidates for a given search), recusal from discussion of and/or voting on a candidate, and disclosing the potential conflict of interest and and participating fully.

Faculty completely or partially recusing themselves should notify the search chair and the department chair. In the event the department chair needs to recuse themselves, they should notify an associate chair (or suitable delegate on the chair’s executive committee) and delegate their portion of the process to that delegate. If the search chair needs to recuse themself, they should notify the department chair and identify a suitable delegate for that portion of their responsibility. Faculty unsure of whether they should recuse themselves should consult with the department chair and/or search chair.

Faculty should recuse themselves from the entire search when:

  • The faculty member has a familial, romantic, sexual, and/or financial relationship with a candidate currently under consideration. (Note: this is the state law.)
  • The faculty feels that their relationship with one candidate would prevent them from being objective in their evaluation of other candidates under consideration.

Recusal from the search includes ​any​ conversation about the search and hire, including in committee and departmental meetings as well as other informal contexts or individual conversations with other faculty members.

Faculty should recuse themselves from evaluation, discussion, and voting on a candidate (including ranking of candidates) when:

  • The faculty member was that student’s dissertation adviser or co-adviser.
  • The faculty member could feel an obligation to disclose comments made in confidence about that candidate.
  • The faculty member could be perceived as not objective about their evaluation of that candidate because of their relationship with them (e.g., a close friendship or deep personal animosity).
  • The faculty member’s own professional standing could increase or decrease as a result of hiring the applicant. ​Note: ​this is meant to cover situations like past or current close mentorship and ​not​ faculty who would benefit in their work by the department hiring a collaborator.

Recused faculty should refrain from any discussion of the conflicted candidate’s application with other faculty, including in both formal and informal contexts.

Faculty should disclose when they have:

  • Collaborated with a candidate in the past 48 months, including but not limited to being co-investigators, co-authors on one or more publications, or co-organizing a conference, workshop, or part of a conference.
  • Been a dissertation or thesis committee member (not GSR) for that student.
  • Any other relationship with a candidate that could appear to a conflict of interest.

Search chairs should seek, in the application evaluation process, for faculty who are at arm’s length from the applicant to complete initial review and ranking of that candidate.

When a faculty member has written a letter of recommendation for an applicant, for the current search:

  • That faculty member should let others lead the discussion of that candidate, as the faculty member has expressed their opinion in the letter. They may answer questions or clarify specific points in the discussion.
  • The search chair / committee should seek, in the application evaluation process, for faculty who did not write a recommendation letter for that candidate to complete reviews of that candidate.