Lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs

ACCESS has shown that data on the demographic composition of speakers at conferences and award winners are rarely collected when analyzing who is and is not publicly recognized as a thought leader (Segarra et al., 2020c). Moreover, to replace the existence of such data, sometimes societies default to searching for online biographies and photographs of leaders or award winners, likely leading to misassigning of identities, especially for individuals with intersectional identities (Shiffman et al., 2022).

Because of the role societies play in establishing both disciplinary culture and steering the direction of their fields, they can promote broad dissemination of information and normalize conversations and practices about equity and inclusion. Societies are also uniquely positioned to promote HEP member scholarship and research, validating the topics they study, by positioning them as speakers, awardees and centrally placing them in conference schedules. Moreover, HEP representation among speakers fosters the science identity of HEP trainees (Kim-Prieto et al., 2013; Hagan et al., 2020). 

The lack of robust demographic data about conference speakers and award winners presents societies with hurdles similar to those discussed above for challenge #1. For this reason, societies will benefit from recommendations and training materials generated for challenge #1, as they ascertain the demographic composition of their thought leaders. Once societies are well-positioned to collect this data sustainably, they will be able to assess progress over time toward diversifying the ranks of their thought leadership. LED-BIO will arrive at evidence-based recommendations and resources to facilitate building more inclusive thought leader ranks in scientific societies by recruiting specialists in organizational dynamics.

Discussion Topic #1: Barriers. Why have societies not collected demographic data on their thought leaders in the past? What are the institutional barriers that prevent individuals from diverse backgrounds from rising as highly visible thought leaders in their scientific societies? 

There are intersectional awards, mechanisms, and leadership opportunities that recognize both achievement and identity, aiming to highlight HEP who are highly accomplished in disciplinary areas in STEM (ASCB 2020). For these opportunities, individuals self-identify as belonging to particular historically-excluded demographic groups through the process of nomination/application or are identified by their nominators (Segarra et al., 2020f). Even when this is the case, many times the necessary data is not collected to determine with granularity the identities of the scientists being nominated to ascertain the diversity in the nominee or applicant pool. By doing this we run the risk of not acknowledging important differences and nuances between the lived experience and outcomes for different HEP groups.

For achievement-based awards or leadership opportunities that are not designed to recognize both scientific accomplishments and identity background, it is not surprising that the majority of the honorees present or appear as belonging to groups that have been well-represented and part of the majority group in STEM (Shiffman et al., 2022). 

A notable barrier to HEP rising through the thought leader ranks in scientific societies can be the processes used to select the individuals that are highlighted as speakers and awardees at disciplinary events (Segarra et al., 2020f). If there are no built-in ways to mitigate bias in individual nomination and selection, it is likely that the mechanisms being used to make selections are part of the problem.

Discussion Topic #2: Resources. What resources would facilitate individuals from diverse backgrounds rising as highly visible thought leaders in their scientific societies?

There are resources available that can help us mitigate bias in individual nomination and selection for awards and leadership positions. For example, there are existing lists of accomplished scholars from historically-excluded backgrounds in different disciplines, reminding us that it is only a myth that these scholars are too rare or too scarce to find. However, unless these resources are part of the structures and operational policies that help us run our societies, we run the risk of using these resources in performative ways that do not advance the inclusivity goals of our communities.

Discussion Topic #3: Interventions and strategies. What are interventions and strategies that work and hold potential for facilitating  individuals from diverse backgrounds rising as highly visible thought leaders in their scientific societies?

Creating processes that integrate our inclusion goals for selection and identification of leaders and awardees

It is important to normalize the use of processes that help us intentionally integrate inclusivity and mitigate bias in society functions. Society functions can often be formalized by the creation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that can be followed and modified as the needs change (Segarra et. al., 2020f). For example, societies can ensure that diversity is part of the selection criteria for leadership/award positions as well as for the selection committees in charge of upholding the integrity of the processes. Having the society team in charge of awards and program speaker selection use an SOP to guide their activities can be a great tool that transcends the test of time as society staff and volunteer turnover. Accountability strategies can be built-in as part of these SOPs. Accountability can be in the form of communication with membership or with committees/boards with supervisory and consulting roles. Accountability can also come in the form of external evaluation.

Build capacity and mentoring resources for HEP aspiring society leadership roles

There are a number of programs that prepare HEP for leadership roles in academia and beyond. These training experiences likely help mitigate some of the mentoring and social capital gaps that contribute to the challenges preventing HEP from rising in leadership ranks. However, these interventions focus on preparing HEP to face the challenges associated with our biased scientific cultures instead of attempting to change our scientific cultures to be more inclusive.

New approaches to creating lasting cultural change

For a new era of diversity and inclusion culture to rush into our scientific societies, we must find new approaches and strategies that will get us there. As a collective, we have used similar strategies for a long time to not much success. As we test out new paradigms to help guide our societies’ inclusivity efforts, care should be placed in using both data and HEP lived experience to iterate what we find works best.

LED-BIO Logic Model:

Download LED-BIO CHALLENGE 03 pdf