I would be very wary of working at this institution in a research capacity. My recent experience interviewing for such a role raised red flags in two main areas: 1.) a red flag in their organization/mgmt; and 2.) a red flag in their research ethics.
First, the interview process ended with the company rescinding the role they had advertised. Not only did I not get hired, none of the candidates were hired. And the reason given for not hiring anyone exposed just how internally disorganized the company is. They concluded that none of the candidates possessed a certain qualification they were looking for. Yet, this qualification was not part of the original job posting or listed in the original role requirements. However, it gets worse. Throughout my interview process, at pretty much every stage, I asked whether the fact that my research background is not focused solely in education but includes many other research topics was considered a handicap or disqualifying for the role and I was assured at every stage by multiple people within the organization that it was not required for getting the position and not a handicap.
I went through seven-stage interview, consisting of: a) the screening interview; b1) a substantive interview on my research expertise; b2) an informal interview I asked for with the Director of their Qualitative Research, considering I was interviewing for a similar role on the qualitative side; c) a take-home research proposal exercise; d) an in-person interview lasting three hours and speaking with four employees from multiple departments; e) a reference screening with two of my previous supervisors/colleagues; and f) a one-on-one call with the new incoming CEO.
After this lengthy, months-long process, the company went silent post-CEO call for nearly a week only to get the rejection call for the reason stated above. The entire process itself and the baffling outcome is a red flag in itself. However, even before their decision and the reason for was given, there were a few red flags that give rise to larger management/organization problems likely happening within the organization.
At three different stages throughout the interview process I got the impression that workers in the research department are in an environment where they find themselves responding to the "whims" of upper-level C-suite management. One of these interactions made me believe that these "whims" may come in the form of offhand curiosity by C-suite management that then require intensive time and/or resources from the research staff, however they are neither given feasible enough time or enough resources to perform high-quality research on the subject. The other type of C-suite "whim" I got the impression the research team may deal with quite regularly is to perform research (or the appearance of research, given the lack of adequate timeframes/resources/expertise) for the sake of gathering C-suite "talking points" that they may use to further or negate a specific agenda.
This brings me to my second major red flag with this company, research ethics. The most eye-opening moment came during my one-on-one call with the incoming Houston Good Reason CEO, Courtney Isaak Pichon, wherein she said that Good Reason Houston may sometimes withhold, hide, or not disclose research findings from Houston-area clients, and/or their donors, if the findings were either controversial or did not further a specific agenda. This is/was a huge red flag to any serious researcher, and adds another layer of what I can only describe as seeming to be "toxicity" to the research environment at Good Reason Houston. Namely, that in addition to being subject to the two "whims" I described above the research department is also subject to "selective muzzling" of the facts.
This last interaction essentially voided my entire assumption that this company was furthering equity, research ethics, and seeking to enhance student outcomes. It gave me the impression that this company uses that as their marketing and packaging, but are operating quite differently on the inside.
The company is planning to re-launch the search because I believe they received too many candidates who were serious researchers, and preferred more of a marketing emphasis in this role. But even for marketers applying to be researchers, I would strongly caution against this organization.
