Guide to assessment and recording assessments

This would usually take the form of a written application in some form.  Examples include one or more of the following: traditional application form (with or without a word limit to provide evidence against the criteria), CV with covering letter, tailored career/life history, overarching statement. Panels should be cautious about gathering information, such as CVs, which is not directly relevant to the role in question. Behavioural science has shown that this does lead to the introduction of new requirements, often unconsciously. More information on the potential drawbacks of assessment using CVs is available on the Applied website.

Other potential options which are not used as widely include initial telephone interviews or video applications.  These less used formats each come with some additional level of complexity which would need to be considered. (e.g. how applicants can access the technology required if they do not already have it, how the panel can access the applications, whether the application would be solely this method or alongside a written application – if solely telephone or video application, how contact details and monitoring data would be collected.

Panels should consider whether to make initial assessment anonymous or not.  Doing so will allow the panel to focus solely on the evidence against the criteria.  However, in some rounds (particularly where a small pool of potential applicants is involved) it is possible that applicants will be recognisable anyway and therefore anonymity will have no effect.

Some pointers for assessing initial applications

• Ruling in: The panel should look for reasons to include applicants for interview rather than reasons for ruling them out. This has been demonstrated to increase the diversity of the pool that reaches the next stage of assessment.
• Setting the bar: The panel should treat applications equitably and assess them consistently = the panel can “set the bar” wherever it wishes to but the same bar has to apply to all applicants.
• Prior knowledge: The panel should base its reasons and decisions on the evidence presented by applicants and on the criteria for selection and their associated indicators. Paragraphs C1 and D1 to D3 of the Code are relevant. The Code precludes bringing prior knowledge of applicant performance into account as doing so would mean that the treatment of applicants would be inconsistent. People known to the panel could be advantaged over others who are not known. Equally, a known applicant could be disadvantaged on the basis of hearsay. There is an exception to this general rule of thumb. The Code states at A16 that if a panel member knows something about an applicant that would suggest that the person may not meet the fit and proper person test, that panel member is obliged to share the information with their fellow panel members. Such information should always be transparently investigated to establish the facts and applicants should always have an opportunity to respond before a final decision on their suitability is made.
• Beware of unconscious bias. By way of example, simply because a panel isn’t familiar with the field that someone has worked in shouldn’t invalidate the evidence that they provide. Similarly, panels may have unconscious views about the suitability of people with certain genders for certain roles. The Commissioner has produced a simple to follow crib sheet which includes pointers for bias mitigation.
• Be clear about what good evidence looks like. Remember that this will differ depending on the criterion under consideration. For example, experience can be inferred from positions held but not necessarily skills (abilities). An applicant may have been a board member previously and therefore have that experience but they may or may not have been very effective in that role and they may or may not have the skills that this board needs at this point in time.
• Entire application provides evidence.  Panels should remember that applicants don’t necessarily provide the evidence that they are seeking in the relevant “box”. Panel members should review the entire application before drawing conclusions. 
• Panel decision. The panel should have clear reasons as a panel for ruling people into or out of the next stage of assessment. These should be agreed by the whole panel and a written record of their view should be captured. This is important for transparency and for feedback. The record doesn’t have to be overly detailed but it will be referred to and would have to be relied on in the event of a complaint or investigation. As well as reasons for not taking applicants forward, the record should be clear about which particular areas the panel wants to follow up on with particular applicants who are to proceed to interview.
• Providing views about applicants.  Panel members should each have reached and recorded their own decisions about the quality of applications before discussing them collectively. Rotating the identity of the person who will lead on giving their view about successive applications can help to mitigate against the effect of authority bias and conformity.

There are various forms of interview which the panel can choose from. The Code is not at all prescriptive about which type of interview panels should use. It simply expects the assessment method to be appropriate to what is being assessed. Any combination of the interview types below, or others not referred to, will be legitimate if they achieve this aim.

Some Pointers for Interviews

• Be clear about what good evidence looks like.  Be clear about what you are trying to achieve/evidence and ensure that your fellow panel members are ‘on the same page’.

• Planning for interview. Ensure that there is sufficient time for interviews and any exercises as well as for assessment between them. As per the advice on the stages of elements of assessment, interviews should fall into three distinct stages and time should be allowed for each of them. The interview itself is to gather data, so the panel members will ask questions and take a note of the responses. After the interview, panel members will individually and collectively review the evidence provided against the criteria for selection and the indicators. Only then should the panel reach a decision on how closely the candidate meets the criteria and on their suitability.
• Gathering evidence.  Panel members should remember the purpose of the interview – it is only one of the stages of assessment. It should not be a test of how well people perform at interview but a method of assessing whether people meet the requirements of the role.

• Question preparation.  Prepare question areas in advance and agree the style of questioning with your fellow panel members as well as agreeing what a good answer will look like.  Check what people provided in their initial applications. Some evidence may require no verification, some will require verification and some will require follow up and probing. Fairness at interview doesn’t mean asking every applicant exactly the same questions but will involve covering the same question areas.
• Questioning type.  Ask short, open questions as much as possible to allow the candidates to demonstrate that they’re a match for the role.  Read the section on questioning techniques and be prepared to adapt the questioning style to get the best from each candidate.
• Don’t rush.  Give the candidate sufficient time to consider the question and respond.
• Interview environment.  Panels should try to make it as welcoming and relaxing as possible for candidates and focus on allowing people to give of their best. Be aware of non-verbal cues (micro-inequities and affirmations) in interacting with interviewees. Body language can have a negative or positive impact on assessment that neither the panel nor the interviewee will consciously be aware of.
• No new requirements.  Panels must also remember to stick to the criteria for selection. Applicants may offer information that’s clearly not relevant. By way of example, a candidate may refer to a particular skill that they have that wasn’t included in the specification and which, on reflection, the chair of the body feels would be very helpful. That’s absolutely fine and understandable but panels shouldn’t seek out such information without good reason and shouldn’t take it into account in their assessment as that may well have the effect of introducing a new requirement (see the Code at D2).
• Fit and Proper Person Test.  If the fit and proper person test has been delegated to the panel, it is important for the panel to ensure that all elements of it have been covered (see E6 of the Code). If the panel has concluded that someone cannot meet the test, the interview is an ideal opportunity for that to be relayed to the candidate concerned so that he or she has an opportunity to respond before a final decision on their suitability is made (see the Code at A16 and A17).

• Panel decision.  The PAT Manager will usually record the evidence provided by applicants in response to panel questions as well as panel decisions and reasons for them. The role of the panel chair is pivotal to success in this area. A good panel chair will be able to sum up what the panel has agreed in relation to each of the criteria assessed at this stage for each candidate. The quality of that summing up process and how it is captured will have a direct bearing on the quality of the description of the most able candidate(s) – which forms the basis of a minister’s decision on whom to appoint – and on the quality of feedback provided to people.  

Providing views about applicants.  Each panel member should draw his or her own conclusions about the evidence presented and write down his or her reasons for those conclusions first.  The panel chair should then ask each panel member to give their independent view before the panel reaches its collective conclusion. The role of “first person to offer a view” should be rotated throughout the day. The collective conclusion is the one used as the record of the assessment and included in the applicant summary. The summary is the agreed conclusion of the panel and cannot include references to individual dissent on the part of panel members. For the same reason, individual panel member’s notes should be disposed of once the panel has agreed the content of the applicant summary.

Applied recommends that questions should be designed to reflect job simulations. More information is available on their website. Some of the more common techniques currently in use are set out below.

Situation, Task, Action, Result, (Reflection) (S.T.A.R.(R)) / Competency based assessment

This is the technique that is most commonly adopted in the public sector. It is also known as competency based assessment. Its success, as with other similar techniques, is predicated on the panel knowing in advance what good evidence will look like. This in turn relies on the design of clear criteria for selection and associated indicators (as explained in the "defining what needs to be assessed" section above).

In this technique, candidates are expected to describe a situation (S), the task that they were required to perform (T), the action that they took (A) and the result (R). In some cases, candidates are also asked to reflect (R) on the situation. What, in hindsight, might they have done differently? 

Benefits:

• Higher validity than unstructured interviews
• Prospective applicants can refer to a well-defined set of behaviours that they will require to demonstrate in order to be successful.
• The process should allow panels to assess transferable skills and identify required behaviours regardless of career background.

Potential drawbacks:

• It can elicit pat answers from people who have undergone the same type of interview on several occasions and who have pre-prepared responses for certain criteria for selection.
• It relies on people having built up sufficient experience to be able to draw on such examples (therefore potentially biased towards older people and people from public sector backgrounds). Probing questions at interview and seeking examples other than the one originally offered can mitigate the latter effect so it is important for panels to dig deeper when faced with well-rehearsed responses. (see the section on questioning technique).

It should be noted also that this type of interview is unlikely to be sufficient for assessing certain personal qualities in any depth and that it should always therefore be considered as one option to be used alongside others to generate the necessary evidence. By way of example, using simulations to test skills is likely to be more equitable for people, regardless of their age and experience.

Started, Contribution, Amount, Result (S.C.A.R.)

This technique is similar to the STAR(R) technique and is used to assess the extent to which someone has taken ownership of an issue and initiated a particular course of action in order to improve a situation. It can be particularly effective at identifying people who have change management skills.

• “Started” relates to initiation. Did the person take the initiative or were they instructed to? Was it to address something that had gone wrong or to improve a situation?
• “Contribution” relates to what the person actually did as an individual. If they simply delegated the activity then there is a question over the quality of their contribution.
• “Amount” relates to the extent of the difference. Simply applying an “off the shelf” solution to a problem is different to coming up with something new and bespoke.
• “Result” is about how successful the activity was and the extent to which it led to a positive change.

Performance based interviewing (PBI)

Also known as “the one question” interview, this technique is more discursive and can allow the conversation to flow more naturally and freely. As a consequence, it may be less susceptible to rehearsed responses and/or sectoral background bias whilst still generating the evidence sought. It also allows for hypothetical questions to be asked and related back to the previous behaviours. This can be very important when appointing people to posts that require the successful candidate to have a clear vision and plan for an organisation’s future in the short, medium or longer term. The following is not an exhaustive list of potential questions but does demonstrate that questioning in this way can generate evidence that criteria for a role are met without referring specifically to the criteria themselves. Here’s an example of how it works in practice (with areas potentially being tested in brackets):

• Please think about your most significant accomplishment. Now, could you tell me all about it?
• Who else was involved and how did you work with them to achieve your goals? (teamworking/leadership/influencing etc)
• How did you ensure that you achieved your goals? (resource management/ planning/strategic thinking etc.)
• Can you tell me more about the context in which you achieved your goals? (environment)
• How did you keep people informed of progress? (communication)
• What challenges did you face and how did you overcome them? (problem solving/strategic thinking)
• Did you have any difficult decisions to make? If so, how did you decide to do what you did? (decision making/problem solving etc.)
• What would you do differently if you had to do this again? (critical faculty/ability to take an objective view)
• In this role, you will have to achieve X within six months, from what you’ve told me, how will you go about it on this occasion?

Strengths based interviews (S.B.I)

Whereas traditional competency-based interviews aim to assess what a candidate can do, a strengths-based interview looks at what they enjoy doing and have a natural aptitude for. The approach is predicated on the understanding that people will be more motivated to fulfil roles effectively when the activities that they will be required to perform are a match for what they enjoy doing. These interviews therefore seek to identify what energises and motivates the candidate.

Questions could include: what kind of situations do you excel in? What tasks do you find most enjoyable? Can you describe in detail an example of where you feel you performed your best in the role?

This approach will be unfamiliar to many and therefore does have the advantage of mitigating against the possibility of candidates providing pat answers. A drawback of using this technique in isolation from competency based assessment is that the relevance and predictive validity may be limited.

As explained above, each type of interview generally involves a variety of questioning techniques to elicit information. Some of the most common techniques are set out below.

Probing or Reflective Questions

Probing questions encourage the candidate to provide more information and to expand on answers already provided. They also allow interviewers to request more specific answers when initial responses are vague, limited in detail, confusing or unclear.

Examples

• what exactly was your role in the team?
• what did you do to achieve that?
• can you give me a specific example?

Reflective questions encourage candidates to add to answers they have already given. They can also be used to link an earlier answer to a new question. They are helpful at triggering memories and assisting with recall (see cognitive questioning below). They also demonstrate that the interviewers are listening to what the candidate is saying and that they have taken account of the earlier stages of assessment such as an initial application.

Examples

• In your application form you gave an example of…, can you quantify the benefit of the outcome in that case for us?
• You mentioned earlier that you…how does that compare to your work with…?
• You indicated that the project went well, can you tell me about the outcomes?

The Question Funnel

This technique assesses whether a candidate has the ability to recognise a wider or strategic context (the big picture) and then make reasoned judgments about specific aspects of it.

Question funnel questions – examples

The Inverted Question Funnel

This technique can be helpful in aiding a more nervous candidate to open up.

Both funnel techniques can give rise to purely hypothetical answers which may not be good indicators of ability in the role but they can be useful for establishing, in particular, strategic thinking.

Inverted funnel questions – examples

Cognitive questioning

Because of the way memories are encoded and stored, memory recall is effectively a reconstruction of elements scattered throughout various areas of our brains. Memories are not stored in our brains like books on library shelves, or even as a collection of self-contained recordings or pictures or video clips, but may be better thought of as a kind of collage or a jigsaw puzzle, involving different elements stored in disparate parts of the brain linked together by associations and neural networks.

Memory retrieval therefore requires re-visiting the nerve pathways the brain formed when encoding the memory, and the strength of those pathways determines how quickly the memory can be recalled. Recall effectively returns a memory from long-term storage to short-term or working memory, where it can be accessed, in a kind of mirror image of the encoding process. It is then re-stored back in long-term memory, thus re-consolidating and strengthening it.

This technique is a way of stimulating the different pathways involved in recall by using different cues.

When candidates appear to be giving pat or rehearsed responses to questions, or seem unable to recall what they have done, this technique helps to surface more accurate evidence. The technique can help to identify whether people’s initial responses accurately reflect what they did. For example:

• in cases in which people are intentionally or unconsciously providing inaccurate information
• in cases in which people have performed well but struggle to evidence it in response to initial questions.

The technique should not be used all of the time but only in these situations where a candidate is struggling to recall or where the response lacks coherence. It should not be used in a challenging way in order to “catch out” candidates but rather as a way of ensuring that the panel has a complete picture.

It works by stimulating disparate parts of the brain where our memories are stored diffusely. It enhances recall and tackles exaggeration. It can be contrasted with more traditional questioning in a few ways:

There are four different areas or “cues” that the interviewer can use individually or in combination to elicit the information sought. These are:

• Personal context (feelings, implications)
• Different perspective
• Different order
• Associations

Personal context includes things like how the interviewee felt about a given situation. It can also include questions on the implications of course of action for the interviewee and others.

Example questions:

• You were getting ready to present your recommendations to the board. How did you feel at the time?
• What implications did this work have for you and your team?

Different perspectives includes questions on how others felt about or were affected in the situation being recalled.

• What did John focus on in that meeting?
• What expectations would Susan have had?

Different order means mixing up the order of events that you are asking your interviewee about.

• “You’ve told us about what you did at the meeting, how did you prepare for it…?”
• “You’ve said you decided to focus on... what were the key steps that led to that decision?”

Associations means asking questions about other things that were going on at the time of the events under exploration.

• “What other priorities did you have at that time?”
• “Where were you spending the majority of your time?”

Whilst questions in all of these areas are not necessarily directly relevant to what is being assessed, it is legitimate to use them if it elicits the evidence that the panel is looking for.

Some examples of simulations or practical exercises which have been used include:

Presentation – applicants are asked to make a presentation to the panel on a specific subject.  This may or may not include the option to use powerpoint/visual prompts. Caution should be used about this method as it is sometimes adopted as standard when in fact there are no criteria for selection related to making presentations (see validity above).

Prepared response – similar to a presentation but more relaxed. Applicants are asked to speak on a topic to the panel who may or may not follow this with questions.

Board paper exercise – applicants are asked to consider a board paper and answer a question/or questions related to the content.  Applicants might be sent the board paper in advance or asked to attend the assessment early enough to have time to be presented with, and consider it on the day.

Psychometric testing – this usually involves a set of on-line tests used to measure individuals' mental capabilities and behavioural style. Psychometric tests are designed to measure candidates' suitability for a role based on the required personality characteristics and aptitude (or cognitive abilities).  They will usually involve a panel being provided with a report from a psychologist who has examined the applicant’s results and may suggest areas for further questioning at interview.

Role play – this involves simulating a real life situation, usually with someone specifically trained to undertake the role required.  The panel will observe and assess the applicant’s response to the situation presented by the professional.

When using simulations or practical exercises it is important that panels carefully consider the combination of validity and assessment (see below). 

It is also important that panels explain in advance how they plan to assess candidates and why. This approach is transparent and provides public assurance about the way in which the process is being conducted.

The selection panel will usually test skills by using competency-based questioning at interview or in a written application. In either case applicants will be asked to provide examples of having put their skills to use in previous situations. The panel may also use an assessment centre approach to test certain skills such as team working and/or communications. Panels may also set specific tasks such as asking applicants to review a board paper to assess skills such as analysis and judgment or to make a presentation to assess communication and presentation skills.

The panel will establish not just whether applicants have used a given skill but how effective they are at putting it into practice.

The panel will not take into account whether applicants have applied their knowledge in practical circumstances unless it is clear from the person specification that practical application is important. The use of wording such as “a working knowledge” means that the panel will look for evidence of applicants having applied their knowledge to practical situations by asking them to provide examples of having done so.  

The panel will usually test knowledge by questioning applicants’ understanding of the subject area. The panel may also set a test or exam either online or as part of an assessment centre exercise. Applicants will be advised of the assessment methods being used in the application pack. The panel will establish not just whether they have the knowledge but how in-depth it is. The panel will identify the applicants who are most knowledgeable in the subject area.  In some cases, although rarely, the role may require a qualification. If so, this will always be made explicit in the person specification as will clarity on whether it has to be at a certain level. Verification in this case will usually be by asking applicants to confirm by way of a tick box or similar that they have the qualification. This can then be checked with the awarding body.

Where experience is sought, the panel will usually include a section entitled “Life History” in the application form, or ask applicants to provide a tailored CV and/or a letter. In all cases applicants will be asked to set out the roles they have held or the activities that they have engaged in that are relevant to the experience described in the person specification.

The person specification can also give guidance on the type of backgrounds or positions that the experience might have been gained in. Experience does not have to have been gained in a professional capacity. Experience gained in the applicants’ personal life and from any voluntary work they have done is equally valid. In some cases, the experience sought may be something very personal to potential applicants such as direct experience of social exclusion or first-hand experience of the accessibility issues that affect public-service users with a disability.

The panel will compare what applicants have written against the type of experience it is looking for to see which applicants provide the closest match. The panel may ask follow up questions at interview to see how effective applicants have been in the roles they have held. If this is planned it will be made clear in the person specification.

The NHS in Scotland has introduced a version of values based recruitment for all new chair and board member posts. This is currently a hybrid form of the appointments process as it uses the core skills framework to describe the skills, knowledge and experience sought and a narrative explanation of the values sought with an explanation for applicants that their behaviours should be aligned with them. Here is an extract from a recent pack:

The values are usually always assessed using psychometric tests and simulated activities, as well as from written application and interviews. As with all other regulated appointments, the appointment pack will continue to be clear about the assessment methods that will be used.

The Commissioner anticipates that other appointing ministers may seek to include values as essential personal qualities for future appointments that they make. It is also anticipated that the core skills framework will be further adapted to include appropriate indicators against the relevant criteria for selection such that both panels and applicants are fully aware of the types of behaviours that are being sought.

• Clearly define criteria using appropriate indicators. This will allow the panel to focus on what is required for the role and to assess people fairly against what has been agreed with the appointing minister and published in the applicant information pack.  This helps to avoid (unintentionally or otherwise) bringing other factors into the assessment.

• Ensure that assessment methods chosen have appropriate validity.  This will help to avoid confusion and make assessment against the criteria easier.  This will help to avoid (unintentionally or otherwise) bringing other factors into the assessment.

• Plan to have plenty of time available when making any assessment decisions.  This will avoid making decisions in a hurry which has been proven to increase the chance of making biased decisions as opposed to clear and rational decisions.

• Consider whether to make initial applications anonymous or not.  Doing so will allow the panel to focus solely on the evidence provided against the criteria and reduce biased thinking.

• Consider how the forms of assessment that the panel is thinking about using might impact on members of any under-reflected group.  In particular, consider whether and how disabled applicants may be impacted so that reasonable adjustments can be put in place. When putting adjustments in place, always consult the individual applicant to ensure that their views on what would be suitable are taken into account.

• Ensure that you data gather, evaluate and then make decisions.  Trying to carry out these stages concurrently will reduce clarity of thinking and judgment.

• Ensure that enough time is provided to undertake each of the assessment stages.  Rushing the process will increase the chance of making biased decisions.

• Do not assess applicants on anything other than the criteria set out the published person specification.  If an applicant brings a different skill, level of knowledge, experience or personal quality than asked for, or if they can demonstrate one of these to a higher level than is required, this cannot be taken into consideration.  This would become a new requirement to the role, and if needed, should have been defined at the outset.  Consideration of attributes not set out in the person specification has the potential to be discriminatory as not everyone has the opportunity to demonstrate whether they also have that attribute.

• Panel members should each make their own analysis of each applicant against the required criteria before discussing their findings with the panel as a whole.  The person giving their views first in the discussion should be rotated so that other panel members are not unduly influenced by one individual.

• In any face to face assessment method, panel members should help to make the applicant feel at ease so that they are able to give their best responses.  Panel members should also be aware of non-verbal cues (micro-inequities and affirmations) in their interaction with interviewees.

• The PAT Manager will draft an applicant summary which sets out the evidence provided by each applicant drawn from each stage of assessment against each of the criteria for selection and the panel’s view on how each applicant did or did not demonstrate their suitability. There’s no requirement for the summary to set out which stage of assessment generated the evidence sought.   
• Only the applicants who have met all of the essential requirements to the extent specified by the appointing minister can be identified as most able.
• Where the fit and proper test has been delegated to the panel, the information about and generated by the test also has to be included in the summary.

Particular care must be taken over the contents of the applicant summary. It should include contextual information provided by applicants where this is relevant to the criteria for selection. It should not include reference to apparent new requirements and, as should be clear from the foregoing, new requirements should not in any case have featured in the assessment of applicants.

• Public confidence is eroded if applicants believe that the process of selection is not fair and open.
• People may draw this conclusion if the feedback they receive appears not to be based on their assessment against the criteria for selection.
• This is most likely to happen when applicant summaries refer to new requirements.

For example

General knowledge of employment law is required in the person specification. The applicant summary notes that the applicant had general knowledge but not detailed knowledge relevant to the work of the body. This is fed back to the (unsuccessful) applicant. The applicant may conclude that they have been ruled out for reasons not related to the published requirements. The applicant may also conclude that they have wasted their time and effort in applying. Examples of good and poor practice in recording applicant summaries follow. 

In this section you’ll find examples of applicant summary content that, depending on the context and criterion being assessed, will or won’t comply with the provisions of the Code.

Criterion – the ability to challenge constructively within a team or committee setting

Compliant:

“Ms X provided an excellent example in her application of challenging in the context of her role as a board member of the Inversnecky Housing Association.  She described how she challenged the perception of newer members that they would have a day to day role in the running of the organisation rather than overseeing and monitoring its strategic direction; at interview she explained how she did this in a constructive, engaging and facilitative way, offering to provide information and material at a future meeting in order to ensure all members had greater clarity on their role. Ms X provided a second example… The panel concluded that Ms X was highly skilled at challenging constructively within a team or committee setting”

Non-compliant (see highlights):

“Ms Y is a chartered accountant with PWC. She has held a mid-management role in the company for seventeen years although she had a four year break during that period. She came across as quite nervous at interview but nevertheless gave a reasonable example of challenging constructively during a staff meeting but it was from some time ago and not at the level of seniority that the body requires to be an effective board member as it was not at board level. She also didn’t appear to understand the differences between the role of the executive and non-executive and the panel concluded that this would mean she would find it difficult to operate effectively as a challenging board member.“

Please remember that whether or not an applicant summary’s contents are compliant is context-driven.

By way of example, if the criterion for selection relates to experience then a list of standalone statements about roles held which demonstrate that an applicant has relevant experience is compliant:

Criterion - Experience of the Scottish Criminal Justice System

“Mr Z is a practising Advocate, working on criminal cases. He has judicial experience as one of the Judges of the Courts of Appeal of Inversnecky since 2005.”

Knowledge can also sometimes be inferred from positions held and in such cases it is again perfectly legitimate to list relevant positions.

Criterion - Knowledge of the Scottish Criminal Justice System

“Professor Z is Emeritus Professor of Prison Studies in the University of Inversnecky. He was the founding Director of the Scottish Centre for Incarceration Studies (2002-2008) and a former prison governor. Professor Z has a PhD from the University of Aberdon in criminology.”