Read on Twitter
Can we talk about this article (published today, simultaneously in a number of journals)?
Because I don't think it's doing the work its (many, many) authors hope it will. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-020-0529-x
Because I don't think it's doing the work its (many, many) authors hope it will. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-020-0529-x
Overall, this article strikes me as milquetoast. To the extent that it is staking a position, it's a position that I'd hope would be utterly uncontroversial: STEM fields should not exclude marginalized groups.
And I am delighted that the authors of the article are going on record as being against the exclusion of marginalized folks from STEM.
But being against it is a lot easier than giving an effective action plan to dismantle the structural & social arrangements of exclusion in STEM.
But being against it is a lot easier than giving an effective action plan to dismantle the structural & social arrangements of exclusion in STEM.
Indeed, even in the first section of the (4-page) article, there is already reason to think that the authors are not entirely sure why it matters for STEM to be diverse & inclusive.
The authors tell us we ought not regard marginalized scientists primarily as a resource … and then they point to marginalized scientists as a necessary resource for meeting life-threatening challenges ahead.
The authors start out the article by pointing to three marginalized scientists who made recognizably important scientific contributions, but they don't say anything specific about about the ways in which they departed from “cultural expectations” of scientists.
Verily, the details of their marginalization, and what that meant for their ability to pursue their scientific work or to flourish as scientists, is precisely what scientific communities must grapple with if science is to become diverse and inclusive.
No such grappling here…
No such grappling here…
In a section titled "Diversity 101," the article presents "definitions" of diversity, equity, inclusion, implicit bias, microaggressions, and marginalized scientists.
These definitions … are not especially helpful.
They will not persuade anyone who sees DEI as a threat to STEM.
These definitions … are not especially helpful.
They will not persuade anyone who sees DEI as a threat to STEM.
Also, let's be clear, pointing to implicit bias without explicitly recognizing that EXPLICIT BIAS IS A REAL PROBLEM right now in STEM fields suggests that these authors are out of their depth.
Their approach to defining "marginalized scientists" adds more evidence to the authors-out-of-their-depth column.
"Marginalized scientists: Scientists who are at the periphery of the social, economic, and scientific discussions."
It comes across almost as a brute fact …
"Marginalized scientists: Scientists who are at the periphery of the social, economic, and scientific discussions."
It comes across almost as a brute fact …
…rather than acknowledging & interrogating the REASONS that some scientists have been treated as marginal by those whose voices, interests, and access to power and resources have been centered.
UNDERSTANDING these reasons is important in mounting challenges to them.
UNDERSTANDING these reasons is important in mounting challenges to them.
And putting the marginalization of some groups in STEM as (probably) due to implicit bias strikes me as a framing unlikely to bring any meaningful change to STEM.
It's almost a willful helplessness, & it comes across as unwillingness to examine how business-as-usual is involved.
It's almost a willful helplessness, & it comes across as unwillingness to examine how business-as-usual is involved.
Consider the sorts of justifications scientists reach for to defend their biases, many of which turn on scientists’ ability to “know good work when they see it,” to judge who has “potential” and who does not, to assess who is a good “fit” for an organization, etc.
NOT ALL OF THESE OPERATIVE BIASES ARE IMPLICIT.
In most cases, counteracting them will require both individual AND collective work, better people AND better systems for them to work within, not definitions that are probably already on an HR website.
In most cases, counteracting them will require both individual AND collective work, better people AND better systems for them to work within, not definitions that are probably already on an HR website.
At this point, you may be worried that I am critiquing the article for not doing a thing that the authors were not in fact trying to do. But observe
In particular, their second stated purpose for writing & publishing the article: "Provide actionable advice to implement equity in academia, and related businesses and organizations."
Are *chemists* the professionals with the relevant expertise to give such actionable advice?
Are *chemists* the professionals with the relevant expertise to give such actionable advice?
Sadly, there is nothing in this article to convince me that THESE chemists have the relevant expertise to provide actionable advice to implement equity in STEM.
I'm not even sure they were really paying attention in whatever DEI workshops their organizations sent them to.
I'm not even sure they were really paying attention in whatever DEI workshops their organizations sent them to.
This becomes an issue as the authors try to frame their argument for diversity, equity, & inclusion in STEM.
They try to give REASONS that will persuade folks who think STEM fields are fine as-is. But they're not great at anticipating (or answering) objections to their claims.
They try to give REASONS that will persuade folks who think STEM fields are fine as-is. But they're not great at anticipating (or answering) objections to their claims.
For example, they claim that "Science can *only* expand the research questions and problems defined as important with a broad pool of life experiences and knowledge.”
But, it seems like scientific fields with low diversity keep coming up with new questions to ask, new things to study.
Maybe they mean that the research questions and problems defined as important will only serve the interests of a narrow slice of the population unless science includes practitioners with a broad pool of life experiences and knowledge (although that's not what they wrote)…
… & it's not enough to have this more diverse population of scientists if their knowledge and life experiences are not taken seriously by their fellow practitioners.
(Cf. Prescod-Weinstein on white empiricism in physics.)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/704991?mobileUi=0
(Cf. Prescod-Weinstein on white empiricism in physics.)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/704991?mobileUi=0
How to get STEM practitioners to take equity issues more seriously? Here's what the authors say:
I am frankly relieved that the authors recognize the importance of listening to marginalized scientist (since the earlier draft of this article which I saw did not).
Am I convinced that they are as skilled at listening to marginalized scientists as they should be?
Hmmmm…
Am I convinced that they are as skilled at listening to marginalized scientists as they should be?
Hmmmm…
And on the collect-reliable-data-to-characterize-the-problem recommendation, I am unpersuaded.
Do the authors really think, for example, that chemists don’t KNOW that Black chemists constitute a proportion of chemists that is far below their share of the larger population?
Do the authors really think, for example, that chemists don’t KNOW that Black chemists constitute a proportion of chemists that is far below their share of the larger population?
The numbers are only useful if chemists ALSO critically examine the excuses they give to each other, and to themselves, to rationalize these numbers and to blame them on factors external to the operation of scientific institutions and communities.
I have more to say about this article, but I need to pivot to a day full of Zoom meetings.
I'll pick up this thread on the other side of those, either tonight or tomorrow (depending on how depleted I am).
I'll pick up this thread on the other side of those, either tonight or tomorrow (depending on how depleted I am).
Zoom meetings for today are completed, & I seem not to be totally spent, so let's return to this well-intentioned-but-problematic article, shall we? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-020-0529-x
In the section titled "Supporting marginalized scientists," the authors start by referencing the measurable negative impact of discrimination on marginalized scientist.
Recognizing that there are REAL HARMS here is important, & I hope the readers take it seriously …
Recognizing that there are REAL HARMS here is important, & I hope the readers take it seriously …
… although I predict that significantly more than 0% of the readers who are physical scientists will take the evidence from social science researchers seriously.
And this is not unconnected to the larger problem of the bias built into STEM environments & communities.
And this is not unconnected to the larger problem of the bias built into STEM environments & communities.
Let me try that again:
I predict that significantly more than 0% of the readers who are physical scientists will NOT take the evidence from social science researchers seriously.
For real, ask folks whose research area is chem ed & share depts colleagues who do "real" chemistry.
I predict that significantly more than 0% of the readers who are physical scientists will NOT take the evidence from social science researchers seriously.
For real, ask folks whose research area is chem ed & share depts colleagues who do "real" chemistry.
Next, the authors assert that "every member of the scientific community has a duty to act and create support structures that promote the career development of marginalized scientists" & give examples of such support structures.
Mentoring, for example…
Mentoring, for example…
On the plus side, the article recognizes that "marginalized scientists" tend to carry more than their share of mentoring & similar service, because they are sought out as mentors by "marginalized" trainees.
Given that service is low in the hierarchy of things-you-gotta-do…
Given that service is low in the hierarchy of things-you-gotta-do…
… this disadvantages the "marginalized" mentors (since service is time away from research & grant-writing & things that play a big role in formal performance evaluations).
Thus "Mentoring marginalized scientists should also be the responsibility of well-represented scientists."
Thus "Mentoring marginalized scientists should also be the responsibility of well-represented scientists."
Given that most of the scientists who are expected to mentor have received nothing like formal training in how to mentor ANYONE, let alone how to mentor "marginalized" trainees, this could go badly wrong!
Well-meaning normative scientists have little awareness of the messages their words or actions convey to non-normative scientists about who belongs in science, or about what sacrifices a non-normative scientist should be willing to make to succeed in science.
Frankly, telling white male chemists (for example) to mentor Black women chemist without providing more detail on HOW to do this effectively seems like a bad approach.
I think a better approach would be to recognize a community responsibility to support the scientific flourishing of non-normative scientist, & developing unit-level and institutional policies to live up to that responsibility …
… including reducing the unitary power PIs have exercised over their trainees https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2016/02/27/reducing-harassment-in-science-get-a-life/#6590cb7ae999
(because really, PIs have A LOT of unitary power over their trainees!) https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2016/02/29/reducing-harassment-in-science-funding-follows-trainees/#5650cf025e24
… and having institutions PROVIDE TRAINING in how to mentor and EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS of mentoring in a way that counts in the mentor's performance evaluation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2016/02/26/reducing-harassment-in-science-make-mentoring-a-priority/#4d90c52b139b
The authors point to "online peer communities" as another avenue of support for "marginalized scientists."
Y'all, I don't need to tell you that I have found value on here & in various online communities, but …
Y'all, I don't need to tell you that I have found value on here & in various online communities, but …
… if we are putting our hopes for more diverse, equitable, and inclusive STEM on the very existence of online peer communities, I do not believe the authors are using the same internets as the rest of us.
It seems important to note that interactions between scientists on Twitter can just as easily re-entrench hierarchies and expose non-normative scientists to discrimination and violence (to their psyches, their professional relationships, their career advancement).
And, while the goal of promoting "marginalized" colleagues & their scientific work is a worthy one, take a moment here in Twitter to search “science boost group” & note that these efforts can end up doing at least as much harm as good to those colleagues.
The next suggestion for an intervention has to do with financial support. I had such hopes for this item! But …
Equitable financial aid & less expensive-to-access networking events? REALLY? Is that all you've got?
Targeted travel grants and networking events are homeopathically weak tea, given research that suggests that bias is built into more impactful financial mechanisms like grant support (Cf. Ginther et al. 2011, Hoppe et al. 2019, & @drugmonkeyblog's fine-grained discussion of both)
The next strategy for stepping up to support more diverse, equitable, & inclusive STEM: "Effective inclusion & diversity support."
This point suggests that scientists ought to be working with existing DEI offices and with DEI scholars and professionals, not trying on their own to reinvent these wheels.
This is not advice the authors of this article seem to have taken for themselves. Which is telling.
This is not advice the authors of this article seem to have taken for themselves. Which is telling.
The last example of the sort of support the authors urge their readers to show to their "marginalized" colleagues: "recognizing the work of marginalized scientists."
Set aside for the moment that this article shows little evidence that its authors have read, engaged with, or cited HIGHLY relevant work in nearby scholarly fields (although if we take seriously the potential of strong interdisciplinary work , THIS IS A GLARING PROBLEM).
You know what else would help a lot?
Valuing "marginalized" colleagues as real colleagues, as central in their importance to scientific communities and scientific endeavors.
Valuing "marginalized" colleagues as real colleagues, as central in their importance to scientific communities and scientific endeavors.
In the next section of the article, "Expanding and redefining excellence," the authors suggest that "marginalized" scientists may be disadvantaged because "well-represented" scientists fail to recognize the actual value of their contributions.
Maybe, the authors suggest, this is because the questions the "well-represented" scientists focus on are taken as obviously important, while the problem-space "marginalized" scientists work in is not seen as obviously important.
Then the authors say something about how to broaden the overly-narrow standards of "excellence"…
Beyond "don't discount the value of teaching & service in tenure & promotion evaluations," I am not sure what the authors are actually recommending here. Without details, this recommendation is useless.
And then there's this paragraph:
Where even to start?
The authors make it sound like the private sector has succeeded at DEI.
The authors make it sound like the private sector has succeeded at DEI.
As a denizen of Silicon Valley, I can tell you non-normative people in the private sector experience levels of biased behaviors from colleagues, supervisors, funders, and clients, and biased workplace systems, that rival those found in academia.
The bottom-line ain't magic.
The bottom-line ain't magic.
Also, let's do a little thought experiment:
What if diversity, equity, & inclusion in STEM ended up NOT yielding tremendous benefits for all? What if the benefits flowed primarily to currently marginalized practitioners & communities?
What if diversity, equity, & inclusion in STEM ended up NOT yielding tremendous benefits for all? What if the benefits flowed primarily to currently marginalized practitioners & communities?
Indeed, what if getting grants or jobs or Nobel Prizes got a little bit *harder* for "well-represented" scientists?
Would that be a good reason to tap out of DEI efforts in STEM?
The authors leave open the possibility that their answer would be "Yes."
Would that be a good reason to tap out of DEI efforts in STEM?
The authors leave open the possibility that their answer would be "Yes."
This raises a big question that's not well-addressed in this paper: Should we be working for more diverse, equitable, & inclusive STEM *because* it will produce better outcomes for everyone, OR should we do this work because failing to do so is unjust to the people excluded?
The next section, "Inclusion in the publishing space," notes that the representation of scientists in journals, etc., is not reflective of the actual diversity of STEM disciplines (which in turn do not reflect the diversity of the larger society).
What do they suggest here?
What do they suggest here?
That "stakeholders from all parts of the scientific community are represented at all levels of the publishing process." They then describe what this change would mean:
Do the authors really believe these factors fully explain disparities in publishing rates? Fix these and suddenly who is published is representative of who is doing science?
I am not sure it's that straightforward.
I am not sure it's that straightforward.
I suspect an analysis of uneven burdens carried by non-normative scientists with respect to service duties, to name just one factor, would reveal some intriguing correlations in terms of who is getting manuscripts submitted.
(I mean, have we not seen some preliminary analysis of submissions submission rates from male vs. female PIs during the pandemic, where the labor of care for others is not evenly distributed? Or did I hallucinate those?)
Also, I suspect it’s extremely difficult to be a productive researcher if you have to carry the daily worry that you or people in your family or community or lab group will be killed by racist policing. To name just one factor that may matter.
The authors write, "Journals can create a more equitable and trustworthy publishing process by stating their mission initiatives clearly and making direct statements addressing any kind of bias against marginalized groups."
They don't offer any sample language for a statement.
They don't offer any sample language for a statement.
Neither do they suggest a plan to deal with submissions from authors advancing arguments for biased conclusions in the name of “just following the facts where they lead”?
Because you know that these submissions will be in the offing. You've read some that have been published.
Because you know that these submissions will be in the offing. You've read some that have been published.
We're at the home-stretch: CONCLUSION!
The authors seem to suggest that well-represented STEM practitioners can do better by their "marginalized" colleagues by … taking implicit bias tests!
The authors seem to suggest that well-represented STEM practitioners can do better by their "marginalized" colleagues by … taking implicit bias tests!
Note that there are studies that show that workplace use of implicit bias tests can backfire and result in behavior that is more biased.
DEI scholars and professionals know this! Why don’t the authors of this article?
DEI scholars and professionals know this! Why don’t the authors of this article?
The authors write, "Reducing the inequalities in STEM requires a data-based, holistic approach to DEI."
You know who has data to which we should attend? Those who do research on DEI and effective interventions to support DEI.
You know who has data to which we should attend? Those who do research on DEI and effective interventions to support DEI.
Must chemists reinvent these wheels? Is that really easier than believing that researchers in other disciplines are building reliable – and actionable – bodies of knowledge?
The authors write, "We all need to become advocates of marginalized scientists and give them equitable opportunities to advance their careers because it is ultimately the right thing to do."
The choice of words ("give them") is telling…
The choice of words ("give them") is telling…
It makes it sound like the normative scientists, especially those at the top of the power gradients, ought to share some of the goods that they (rightly) control …
… rather than challenging the existing social arrangements and powers structures within STEM in order that everyone has access to these goods without being at the mercy of benevolent gatekeepers.
DEI cast as individual charity is doomed to fail.
DEI cast as individual charity is doomed to fail.
The authors write, "The result will not only be a broader pool of future talents, but also in an unprecedented level of excellence that a more colorful and inclusive scientific community can attain."
This wording…
This wording…
This wording invokes photos on institutional websites that feature a higher proportion of non-normative members than the institution as a whole does.
The smiles in those photos don't tell you much about whether those marginalized members feel included or valued. But, colorful!
The smiles in those photos don't tell you much about whether those marginalized members feel included or valued. But, colorful!
The conclusion does point to something that I reckon might actually be reasonably valuable: a collection of personal statements that come from "scientists of all walks of life." You can find those here:
https://chemistrycommunity.nature.com/channels/diverse-views-in-science
https://chemistrycommunity.nature.com/channels/diverse-views-in-science
To sum up my big issues with this article:
(1) It doesn’t engage in any useful way with a huge body of existing research (in multiple disciplines) on issues of diversity and inclusion in science or more generally.
(1) It doesn’t engage in any useful way with a huge body of existing research (in multiple disciplines) on issues of diversity and inclusion in science or more generally.
(2) It doesn’t anticipate objections that scientists might have to the claim that STEM has a diversity and inclusion problem that ought to be dealt with. It doesn’t provide compelling responses to those objections.
(3) Most of the recommendations offered in the article are either so vague that it’s not clear how they might be implemented, or so small that it’s hard to imagine they could have any significant impact if implemented.
(4) Recommendations to support marginalized scientists seem like they were conceived of without significant input from marginalized scientists about the most important challenges they face or what they believe would be most helpful to them in addressing these challenges.
(5) The article gives no roadmap for either the individual-level work nor the organization- or community-level work scientists would need to do to make STEM truly diverse and inclusive.
(6) The article gives no serious analysis of individual-level or organization- or community-level factors that are currently in place and acting as barriers to diversity and inclusion.
(7) Finally, if this article was meant to engage scientists in current discussions about how to dismantle systemic racism (& particularly systemic anti-Black racism), its conveys an "all lives matter" flavor that works against that goal.
/fin
/fin
