application form was sent to Head of School to give a view on the merits of the application. Candidates were then shortlisted and interviewed by either of two boards: Arts, Social Sciences, Celtic Studies, Business, Public Policy and Law Science Engineering and Informatics, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (this was the Board that interviewed Dr Sheehy Skeffington) With each candidate invited to interview, the head of school recommended an external interviewer in Ms Micheline Sheehy Skeffington’s case a Senior – – Conservation Scientist with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Dr B). The complainant submits the interview was a bizarre affair. There were seven people on the other side of table. There was only one woman on the panel (Professor C) and the complainant submits she remained silent and passive throughout. The complainant brought Dr B as a witness to the hearing and he gave evidence that some of the interviewers only arrived a minute before the interview and that there was no discussion of Dr Sheehy Skeffington’s application before the interview or about what questions should be asked. He also gave direct evidence that he sought marking schemes and guidelines prior to the interview, which would be standard practice in his parent Government Department, but he received no reply to his email. When he tried to argue in the post-interview discussion that Dr Sheehy Skeffington was one of the leading plant ecologists in Ireland, he submits that the other members talked over him. Dr B was the only person with specialist expertise in the complainant’s area of work but the committee challenged his mark and the collective mark was reduced significantly saying that he did not know the standard of the other candidates and they did. Dr B stated he has sat on many interview panels and this one fell far short of best practice. He was anxious to add that he is not a personal friend of Dr Sheehy Skeffington but felt an injustice was done in her not becoming empanelled. 2.8 The complainant submits that the panel of successful candidates was supposed contain fifteen people roughly half from Arts, Social Sciences, Celtic Studies, Business, Public Policy and Law and half from Science Engineering and Informatics; Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. Not one woman was among
application form was sent to Head of School to give a view on the merits of the application. Candidates were then shortlisted and interviewed by either of two boards: Arts, Social Sciences, Celtic Studies, Business, Public Policy and Law Science Engineering and Informatics, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (this was the Board that interviewed Dr Sheehy Skeffington) With each candidate invited to interview, the head of school recommended an external interviewer – in Ms Micheline Sheehy Skeffington’s case – a Senior Conservation Scientist with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Dr B). The complainant submits the interview was a bizarre affair. There were seven people on the other side of table. There was only one woman on the panel (Professor C) and the complainant submits she remained silent and passive throughout. The complainant brought Dr B as a witness to the hearing and he gave evidence that some of the interviewers only arrived a minute before the interview and that there was no discussion of Dr Sheehy Skeffington’s application before the interview or about what questions should be asked. He also gave direct evidence that he sought marking schemes and guidelines prior to the interview, which would be standard practice in his parent Government Department, but he received no reply to his email. When he tried to argue in the post-interview discussion that Dr Sheehy Skeffington was one of the leading plant ecologists in Ireland, he submits that the other members talked over him. Dr B was the only person with specialist expertise in the complainant’s area of work but the committee challenged his mark and the collective mark was reduced significantly saying that he did not know the standard of the other candidates and they did. Dr B stated he has sat on many interview panels and this one fell far short of best practice. He was anxious to add that he is not a personal friend of Dr Sheehy Skeffington but felt an injustice was done in her not becoming empanelled. 2.8 The complainant submits that the panel of successful candidates was supposed contain fifteen people roughly half from Arts, Social Sciences, Celtic Studies, Business, Public Policy and Law and half from Science Engineering and Informatics; Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. Not one woman was among