Currently, I'm a grad student applying to internships. For me, I don't understand the confusion, and think the question is being asked possibly out of frustration with the state of things and the whole interview process? (I feel that, for sure)
Nope! I'm well past internships, and am really hoping to not have to apply for any position ever again! I was prompted to ask the question by another thread on the topic of skype/video interviews. I am familiar with the research on the validity of interviews, and the finding are, at best, equivocal, trending more towards a result of "we're not really good at getting or using valid data from interviews" (though as others have posted above, the research methods and analogs to actual interview formats aren't great). The notion of using newer technologies in interviewing got me thinking about the research related to existing methods and wondering how it my apply.
That said, actuarial supremacy of sorts has been around for decades, but we are human beings. Assuming I land interviews, I'm going to be listening to my gut at these places. I'm going to evaluate the supervisors' questions, demeanor, degree of stuffiness, etc.
These are things that i really want to be able to do and think I can do, however there is not strong research evidence that we're particularly good at such things. In fact, we tend to be distracted by irrelevant data (such as physical appearance; outward expression of gender; even the relationship between how people look and how they smell!).
I also want to see the interns' faces to see if they appear they've lost the will to live - something humans can do much better than algorithms.
This sounds like hyperbole, but citation?
I'm also intrigued to see if supervisors themselves know the difference between multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary, and to see what environment they're offering.
I do think that interviews are more important for the interviewee, and MAY yield more valid data (but i'm not sure) for accurately predicting if the place is a good fit or not. As far as knowing the difference between "multidisciplinary" and "transidisciplinary," do you really need and interview to determine that. Also- here's some unsolicited advice, so take it for what it's worth- I'd caution you about how much, as an intern "interviewee" you pursue this line of questioning. It sounds like it's an very meaningful distinction to you, but might not be so to most others AT THE PRACTICAL LEVEL OF INTERNSHIP SUPERVISION (as opposed to the philosophical or system level). It could be an off-putting discussion for many supervisors
I feel like questioning interview utility in the way you are doing may be too reductionistic.
Maybe, but "reductionistic" is not universally pejorative (and it's pretty cliche to be going around calling a behavior analyst reductionistic, don't you think! Next you be accusing me of turning my clients into robots!
😉 note: this winking emoji signifies that what directly preceded it was sarcasm). I think my original question was actually not reductionstic, but whatever- it's kind of a strawman anyways.
What kinds of "future performance" are you referencing, and how is that "objectively" being measured?
I am interested in whether or not candidates can meet the job requirements, get along reasonably well with co-workers, generally come to work prepared, seek supervision and training when necessary, use that supervision and training constructively, and generally advance the mission of the agency. I'd also like to know whether or not they are going to do crazy things like steal stuff, lie, inappropriately hook up with coworkers, engage in damaging gossip, etc. As an added bonus, I'd like to know if they would be fun to have come to trivia with our group from work, offer knowledge in an area of relative weakness, and engage in pleasant conversation over a fine beverage. If they are interns or other trainees, I'd also want to be sure that they clearly understood and desired the type of training experience we could offer, and would like to know if they were going to be able to represent us well when their training was through. In short, probably the same as you and the others who have posted above. I guess I'm just a little more skeptical of our abilities to validly solicit this information through our standard interviews, and would again offer that i think we discount or failures and over-rate our successes.
