Downloaded via 5.188.217.12 on July 23, 2018 at 04:15:31 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 1
National Diversity Equity Workshops: Advancing Diversity in Academia Dontarie Stallings, Srikant Iyer, and Rigoberto Hernandez* Department of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States *E-mail:
[email protected].
The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) has staged four biennial National Diversity Equity Workshops (NDEWs), starting in 2011, convening department heads and chairs of leading research-intensive chemistry departments to advance inclusive excellence. At NDEWs, OXIDE employed the top-down hypothesis that states that if department heads and chairs —viz, middle managers in academia— are empowered and held accountable for advancing diversity then the demographic diversity of the faculties and the diversity climate in their departments will improve. At NDEWs, these department leaders engage with social scientists in understanding the biases and barriers faced by professors and students from four historically under-represented groups —that is, with respect to gender, race & ethnicity, identity & orientation and disabilities. The outcomes include the identification of effective and implementable procedures and policies for chemistry departments to move towards demographics that are comparable to availability. These are distilled into policy statements that chairs can use as a guide for action, and which OXIDE disseminates to the entire chemistry community. Department leaders are also encouraged to implement these findings, and report challenges and successes at later NDEWs. This chapter summarizes the top-down hypothesis, the primary elements of NDEWs as a community-wide intervention, and how barriers to diversity equity founded in social science have been understood within the context of chemistry departments.
© 2018 American Chemical Society Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
I. Introduction The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) is using an evidence-based methodology to promote efforts to advance diversity, inclusion and excellence efforts in the field of chemistry in academia (1). OXIDE was founded in 2010 and has hosted four biennial National Diversity Equity Workshops (NDEWs). The specifics of these workshops are detailed in separate chapters in this book (2–5). The compelling case for these efforts has centered on the significant under-representation of women and minorities in the faculties in chemistry departments (6–8). We have employed a community-wide effort to move faculty demographics to commensurability with availability. Through the NDEWs, we engage department chairs and heads, social scientists, and chemists from under-represented groups to increase awareness and develop strategies to achieve this aim (1, 8–11). At NDEWs and other programs, OXIDE has focused on four historically under represented groups (URGs): gender, race & ethnicity, identity & orientation and disabilities (9, 10). Much has been written about the diminishing diversity in the demographics through the educational and professional pipeline. This has lead to efforts focusing on K-12, and great strides are being made in advancing representation prior to entry to the professoriate. For example, in chemistry, the percentage of PhDs granted to women is now 35 percent (12). Moreover, there remains a distinct mismatch at higher education between the demographics of the faculty and leadership level (with only circa 20% of the faculty in chemistry being female, for example), and that of the US population (8). OXIDE’s efforts have been focused on reducing the disparity by increasing the awareness of the barriers to the professoriate and developing targeted solutions through NDEWs and other dissemination mechanisms—e.g., through social media (11). OXIDE has also been instrumental in collecting the faculty demographics data to help create accountability within the chemistry community and drive competition to improve representation (13–16). The representation of female faculty in the departments surveyed by OXIDE has seen an increase from 15 percent since 2009 to 19 percent in 2016 (13, 14, 16). URM faculty demographics has gone from 4.1 percent in 2011 to 4.9 percent to 2016 (15, 17). These overall numbers tell only part of the story because the representation of the junior faculty has seen much more dramatic gains, and this is the cohort that could most readily be affected by chairs who attended NDEWs. The attendees of National Diversity Equity Workshops (NDEWs) include department chairs from various research-intensive (RI) chemistry departments, social scientists, and diversity experts. Together, they identify effective practices that can reduce barriers faced by under-represented groups (URGs) and increase diversity so as to advance the fundamental currency in academia, namely excellence. There is growing evidence that diversity demographics can be improved only through efforts that are strategic and deliberately executed (18). OXIDE’s efforts targeted departments at RI institutions, as ranked by federal research expenditures in the chemical sciences, so as to ensure that US investments in basic research are creating a diverse workforce that is commensurate with 2 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
our overall population (19). Nevertheless, to the extent possible within budget constraints, OXIDE included departments well beyond the top 50 in that ranking. At NDEWs, OXIDE focuses on chemistry department chairs and heads because they are key departmental representatives, have an overview of the climate of the department, and guide their strategic plans. As the leader of a department, they also have the opportunity to create procedural changes that help build an inclusive environment accommodating individuals from various URG backgrounds. In this context, we thus implement the top-down hypothesis in which we charge administrative leaders with the opportunity and responsibility for advancing inclusive excellence and heading towards representation in their faculties that is commensurate with availability (1). An alternative strategy would rely on a supply-side argument, placing additional resources on training more students —so-called future faculty. Though this also needs to be done, we argue that it won’t be effective unless the demand for said URG faculty also includes a welcoming and inclusive climate. Hence, our use of the top-down hypothesis makes department chairs and heads the natural choice as NDEW participants, because they stand at the nexus between university-wide initiatives and resources, and faculty decisions over hires and resource allocations. Below, we report on the four NDEWs that have been held thus far. Each workshop introduced new materials and methods so as to progressively enable participants to advance our understanding of the drivers, barriers, and solutions to achieving diversity equity in the chemistry professoriate. The outcomes of this chemistry community-wide intervention are also assessed. We conclude with a summary of the critical components for the implementation of these workshops.
II. Top-Down Hypothesis Dobbin and coworkers found that, one of the most effective approaches for advancing diversity demographics in industry is the introduction of accountability of middle managers by executives (20–22). For simplicity, we call this the topdown hypothesis (1). The success of such accountability was also illustrated in the accounts written by Ron Webb who emphasized that championing leaders was critical for increasing diversity at Proctor and Gamble (23). Specifically, in concert with the top-down hypothesis, all of their middle managers were asked to be champions for inclusive excellence and were held accountable for it. In academia, department heads and chairs are effectively middle managers. In principle, university leadership —deans, provosts and presidents— can employ the top-down hypothesis by holding the heads and chairs accountable systematically through timely written or oral reports. The effective practices and procedures implemented in different departments will likely differ substantially in scale and scope because of the differences in their disciplines and in their respective professional cultures. Within this setting, it is challenging to implement the top-down hypothesis because the respective solutions do not necessarily translate well between the departments and hence their chairs can’t be readily driven by competition. An alternative possibility relies on effectively treating all of the departments in a discipline as a virtual company —holding the chairs 3 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
accountable, not to a specific executive, but rather to their collective voice. OXIDE employs the top-down hypothesis in promoting that department chairs and heads be accountable for advancing inclusive excellence, and OXIDE acts as the convener to ensure that they answer to each other as a collective executive of this virtual company. Thus, the use of the top-down hypothesis is evidence-based, and acts to create competition between departments as they try to outperform on metrics related to inclusive excellence.
III. Background: Past Workshops on Diversity Equity Beginning in 2006, the chemistry community began to address the lack of representation present among multiple cohorts within the chemistry field. As a result of the effort by many within the profession, three stand-alone workshops were held. Funded by the NSF, NIH, and the DOE, the workshops implicitly embraced the top-down hypothesis by engaging chemistry chairs to change policies and professional climates within their department. Each workshop focused on addressing the barriers, biases, and needs of one particular under-represented group (URG):
“Working on Building Strong Academic Chemistry Departments Through Gender Equity” (2006) (24) The 2006 workshop focused on gender representation within chemistry departments. As a function of the workshop the following items were noted, (i) Work climate plays a significant role on the retention of female faculty, (ii) Importance of family friendly policy (for all non-tenured faculty), (iii) Implicit bias hinders the promotion of women, (iv), Policies need to be developed to ensure gender equity in assessment process, (v) Recognition of the competition between biological clock and tenure, and (vi) Policies are needed to address 1-2 year career pause.
“Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce Achieving Racial & Ethnic Equity in Chemistry” (2007) (25) The 2007 workshop focused on racial and ethnic representation within chemistry departments. As a function of the workshop the following items were noted, (i) Recognition that availability of URGs on the academic ladder at graduate and postdoc levels is much greater than their representation in faculties, (ii) Departments should foster an environment where inclusive excellence is the primary criterion for hiring, (iii) Recognition that URMs face significant additional barriers to success, and (iv) Need for well thought out departmental diversity plans. 4 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
“Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce. Chemist, Chemical Engineers, and Material Scientist with Disabilities” (2009) (26) The 2009 workshop focused on the representation of individuals with disabilities within the chemistry field. As a function of the workshop the following items were noted, (i) Recognition of the hurdles to generate an accurate census, (ii) Departments need to recognize the acquisition of disabilities as a function of faculty age, (iii) The importance of accommodations and universal design, and (iv) The small numbers of people with disabilities in the sciences, prohibits effective accommodations.
IV. The National Diversity Equity Workshops The workshops prior to 2011, listed above, were successful in creating awareness with respect to the URG areas that they covered by employing the top-down hypothesis. Unfortunately, they were each one-time events. In order to have sustained accountability and to fully employ the top-down hypothesis, the heads and chairs need to be held accountable systematically for advancing diversity equity continuously in time. The biennial National Diversity Equity Workshop was implemented to create precisely this systematic accountability. As there is only one department chair or head at any given time, it is also practical and efficient to include all areas of under-representation in a single workshop —because for example, they generally would not have enough time to attend separate workshops in each URG annually. Thus, there are two primary distinctions between the previously offered workshops and NDEW. (1) Each NDEW addresses the biases and barriers faced by women, URMs, and CWD simultaneously. (2) A fourth URG, pertaining to ones sexual orientation or identity —individuals within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and questioning (LGBTQ ) community— was added to the discussion. Thus far, four NDEWs have taken place. These are summarized below, and more extensive summaries have been included as separate chapters in this book (2–5). National Diversity Equity Workshop 2011 (NDEW2011) (2) NDEW2011 focused on the biases and barriers faced by chemistry faculty identifying as members of at least one of four URGs (Women, URM, CWD, and LGBTQ). Several change drivers for advancing diversity equity resonated with the participants and were highlighted as takeaways: (i) the aim of inclusive excellence as a better metric of department success than excellence alone, (2) the recognition that enlightened self-interest with regards to competition for institute-wide and national resources can be an additionally rallying point for garnering wider departmental support, and (iii) the recognition that solo status may have been a significant barrier contributing to losses in recruitment and retention of URG faculty. The workshop also contained many firsts. At NDEW 2011, we included LGBT equity for the first time in workshops with chemistry chairs by way of including it as one of the diversity areas discussed in the session 5 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
recapping the past workshops. Unlike in past workshops that invariably led with reports on student and faculty demographics showing the lack of representation, NDEW2011 led with social science focus sessions. This enabled participants to interpret such findings in the context of chemistry departments leading to their key takeaways and recommendations. Information and interpretation about demographics were provided in the last workshops as such data does provide context for the need for change. National Diversity Equity Workshop 2013 (NDEW2013) (3) Similar in format to NDEW2011, NDEW2013 focused on the biases and barriers faced with respect to four URGs —Women, URM, CWD, and LGBTQIQ. NDEW2013 topics included a focus session solely on the professional barriers faced by the LGBTQIQ — and the development of solutions to overcome said barriers. As a function of the workshop the following items were noted,: (i) Organizations need to have LGBTQIQ policies which address protection of identity and gender markers on Legal, HR, and Medical forms, (ii) Committees should search in broad areas to access a more diverse and talented pool, (iii) Recognition that stereotype threat makes it more challenging for URGs to succeed once hired, and (iv) Recognition that positive experiences and perceptions of campus climate increase retention rates. As a function of the participant’s effort, NDEW2013 generated a ‘Recommendation list for Chairs’. The list was designed to delineate actions that a chair/head could readily perform to address diversity and inclusion within their respective departments. National Diversity Equity Workshop 2015 (NDEW2015) (4) NDEW2015 focused on the inequitable barriers to success at the intersection —where individuals are members of more than one URG— and women of color, in particular. It also featured a focus on how would-be faculty from under-represented groups can be more equitably encouraged and recruited to join the faculties of research-active chemistry departments. NDEW2015’s focus sessions included: (i) Addressing and Changing Climate, (ii) URM Climate and Solution, (iii) Organizational and Management of Diversity, and (iv) Diversity Solutions. NDEW2015 highlighted; the need for departments to have ‘safe counter spaces’, the need for departments to effectively communicate diversity statements, the importance of Universal Design in multimedia, and the business case for diversity in academia. This led to a revision of the recommendation list for chairs. Its utility was highlighted by a presentation from a department chair, the first Diversity Catalyst Lecturer, who discussed the impacts of implementing the items on the list to their department. National Diversity Equity Workshop 2017 (NDEW2017) (5) NDEW2017 focused on the specific inequitable barriers to the inclusion and success of URMs, organizational management, professional climate, and approaches for equitable recruitment and mentoring of would-be faculty 6 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
from URGs to join the faculties of research-intensive chemistry departments. NDEW2017’s focus sessions included: (i) Addressing and Changing Climate, (ii) URM Climate and Solution, (iii) Organizational and Management of Diversity, and (iv) Diversity Solutions. The format for NDEW2017 Breakout Sessions differed from previous NDEWs, as participants addressed issues introduced by case studies and were tasked with generating policies, procedures, and practices to reduce the underlying barriers. As a function of the participant’s efforts, five additional chair recommendations were introduced. The need for department-level Diversity Action Plans was highlighted, and recommendations for how to construct one were also developed and disseminated by OXIDE.
V. Barriers to Diversity Equity In this section, we provide a brief summary of the barriers-to-success faced inequitably by members of URGs as identified by social scientists researching diversity and inclusion. A critical component of this effort is, the identification of barriers —including biases— generally faced by URG scientists and their specification in the context of the academic chemistry departments. Specifically, we provide a list of some —though far from all— of the barriers and biases faces by chemistry professors from URGs so as to illustrate part of the underlying content presented at NDEWs. “Schemas are hypotheses used to make sense of the world” according to V. Valian (27). Schemas can be positive, negative, or neutral. One of the examples given at NDEW was, “You throw like a baseball like a girl”. The negative connotation refers to a perceived inability for a girl to throw a baseball as effectively as a boy. The actual positive connotation refers to a young lady (Mo’ne Davis) that pitched in the Little League World Series. If one pitched like Mo’ne they would have been the best pitcher in the 2014 Little League World Series. Whether the application of a schema leads to a true or false conclusions is thus far from guaranteed, though its application in this case would systematically adversely affect young women, that is, an under-represented group. This points to the need for going beyond schemas by way of using detailed information about the particular individual in making evaluations. An example of a schema often employed in searches for faculty in chemistry is the use of academic pedigrees to rank-order candidates. As the diversity of candidates varies across different PhD producers, such a practice tends to downshift the diversity of the resulting short list without necessarily being correlated with the true ranking if one were to look at the individuals rather than their associated university degrees. Microaggressions remind an out-group member (“them”) that he/she/they is not fully embraced by the in-group member (“us”) (28, 29). Microaggressions can be unconscious, automatic, and subtle. One of the examples given at NDEW 2015 was, “(Law School) Teachers are overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class; and most (by no means all) black and women law teachers give the impression of thorough assimilation to that style, or of insecurity and unhappiness.”(D. Kennedy). This statement was made to a mixed group of law students. Depending 7 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
on the background (racial/gender) of the students, they internalized the statement differently. Women and URMs students found the statement offensive. White male students did not find the statement offensive. In fact, white male students were ‘dumbfounded’ that the statement was perceived in a negative light (29). Microaggressions may seem innocuous to members of the “us” group. In order to understand why some would find the statement ‘offensive’ one must look at the statement from the perspective of the “them” group. Microaggressions have an accumulative effect and have the capacity to create a toxic work environment for members of the “them” group. Stereotype Threat is a disruptive concern that one will be treated, judged, or evaluated through the lens of negative group stereotypes in a particular setting (30). One of the examples noted was a study performed by Taylor and Walton in 2011 on the effects of stereotype threat on academic learning (31). Black and white students were given rare words to study under two conditions, nonthreatening and threatening. The groups were given a warm-up test and an actual test. Black students who studied under threatening conditions rather than nonthreatening conditions performed worse on both the warm-up test and the actual test. White students were unaffected by threatening conditions. Stereotype threat has a disproportionately negative effect on individuals within URG cohorts. It creates performance anxiety and reduces achievement levels of URGs. In many chemistry departments (as well as universities) it is common to have a wall that celebrates groups of past successful chemists associated with the department, be they department chairs, prize-winning scientists, and distinguished alumni. While it is important to recognize the past as it affirms the quality of the past, it does also create a stereotype threat because such walls have historically been mostly white and male. Students and faculty outside of this in-group are made all to aware that they are members of the out-group. Overburdening and Tokenism is a common barrier experienced by several URG faculties whereby the faculty is expected to have added service roles according to the particular URG group they belong to. E.g. an African American faculty gets added mentoring responsibilities to mentor a student from a URM background as well as to serve in an overload of faculty committees to add diversity to each of them (32, 33). This invariably takes away time from the faculty member’s primary responsibilities of research and slows down their individual tenure and promotion clock. In chemistry departments in which the number of faculty from URG groups —and particularly those who are URMs, is often small enough to be less than a handful— it is not uncommon for said faculty to be overburdened with departmental service responsibilities that focus on advancing and promoting diversity. During interviews of prospective chemistry faculty candidates, current female faculty members are commonly expected to represent their departments —at dinners, lunches, individual meetings, etc.— at significantly higher rates when the individual candidate is also a woman. The same situations often occur with URM faculty members when a URM candidate visits the institution. They are also often expected to serve on many committees because departments and universities understand the value of diverse representation. Again, because URG faculties are under-represented, this invariably means that they have to take 8 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
on a larger service load than their counterparts. This overburdening invariably negatively affects their ability to do other tasks necessary for advancement. Solo Status occurs when an individual, that is a member of a URG, is the lone representative within a professional setting (34, 35). One of the examples was a study performed by Sekaquaptewa and Thompson on the effects of Solo Status on high and low status groups (34). They compared the following groups, (i) Women vs. Men, (ii) Black vs. White, (iii) White Female vs. Black Female vs. Hispanic female, and (iv) Asian v. White. Women were more negatively affected than men under solo status conditions. Blacks were more negatively affected than whites under solo status conditions. Hispanic females were more negatively affected than black females, who were more affected than white females under solo status conditions. Asians were less affected than whites under solo status conditions. Their findings indicate that, the lower your social status the more negatively impacted you are by solo status. The effects of solo status are reinforced by stereotype threats placed on particular cohorts (34, 36). It should be recognized that, representation of women faculty members in chemistry departments were 20% as of 2016—hence, solo status conditions are not uncommon either for a faculty member of a committee or as a candidate facing a hiring committee. The prevalence of such solo status conditions in chemistry therefore acts as an insidious barrier to equity by way of limiting the ability of a community to increase representation sufficiently to break out of solo status conditions. Lack of Universal Design is a design principle that entails creating products and environments that are usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the need for accommodation or modification (37, 38). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities. NDEW2015 focused on providing examples of how departments can better follow universal design principles. Some of the examples included, posting documents in accessible formats, Adjustable / flexible work area and tables which include spaces for, (i) People with range of physical abilities, (ii) Right- or left- handed students, and (iii) People of different heights (37, 38). As facilities age and chemistry programs are reimagined, it is important to build for the future with Universal Design as part of every step. For example, most chemists perform color indication titration labs in their undergraduate training. Though these titrations work well for most individuals, students that are colorblind may not be able to effectively perform the lab. There are a substantial number of lab alternatives, which are more universal with respect to the number of students that can effectively perform the lab, and which don’t necessarily exclude student advancement because of a colorblind condition that is not connected to their ability to understand chemistry. Implicit Bias refers to the perspectives or stereotypes that affect everyone’s initial behavior, understanding, action, and decision in an unconscious manner (25, 36, 39–43). Their collective findings indicate that both gender and race have a negative affect on perceptions of professional abilities. This demonstrated outcome occurs as a function of implicit bias.
9 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
VI. Top−Down Approach: Competitiveness and Role of OXIDE in Facilitating It On Competitiveness A crass motivation for departments to build a diverse workforce is the so-called “enlightened self-interest” associated with the competition for university resources identified for providing accommodations and accessibility to foster an inclusive environment and attract the larger diverse intellectual pool. A truly more enlightened driver is the recognition that a diverse team will be more successful. This forms the basis for the academic case for diversity, and parallels the business case for diversity, which has been based on findings showing the correlation between diversity and healthy economic margins (44, 45). Through participation at NDEWs, chairs discover how to make informed decisions for creating an inclusive departmental environment that nurtures intellectual talent and boosts diversity along all vectors of the academic ladder.
Overcoming Diversity Barriers What makes NDEW different from other workshops is its focus on creating policy and procedural solutions to positively effect diversity inclusion and climate within chemistry departments. NDEWs have, in general, focused on developing mechanisms that flatten diversity inequities and recognize diversity excellence. It is important that the chairs build upon the ideas learned from social scientists and past NDEWs. As such, information learned at each subsequent NDEW builds on past NDEWs. With the knowledge learned and the practices adopted —departments are better able to reduces the barriers to success faced by many URGs.
Reimagining the Academic Ladder Many discussions with respect to workplace diversity have revolved around the professional pipeline (46–48). Based on data presented during the 2007 workshop and current NSF professional demographic information, it has been argued that under-representation within the chemistry field is not necessarily a function of a lack of diverse talent in the available workforce that could fill open faculty positions (25). In lieu of the professional pipeline, the OXIDE team suggested a reimagining of the metaphor for professional pathways by way of replacing leaky pipeline with an academic ladder. OXIDE introduced the Academic Ladders shown in Figure 1 at NDEW2015. The ladder allows one to better discuss the centralized role faculty play in the culture, climate, and demographics of the entire chemistry field. Faculty members teach B.S. students. Faculty members train postdoctoral and Ph.D. students. Faculty members recruit and higher other faculty members. Faculty members become Administrators. Thus faculty positions are not just the end 10 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
goal of students climbing the academic ladder. Those that occupy these positions are truly at the nexus impacting future faculty from the moment then enter our unversities. As such, faculty members have the opportunity to truly effect change—with respect to inclusive excellence—within the chemistry field.
Figure 1. OXIDE’s Academic Ladder was generated as an alternative to the leaky pipeline model for the progress of members of URGs to faculty positions. Note that jobs in industry (or national laboratories) are shown within the pathway, rather than as end goals, only because we are focused on the ladder as it pertains to ultimately reaching faculty positions. It should also be clear that this image is not complete because there are many other possible pathways along the ladder to a faculty position that are not explicitly indicated here. Each arrow on the Academic Ladder (figure 1) represents a transition which can be influenced by mentors, department heads, and professors. The policies and procedures discussed during NDEWs were designed to promote diversity excellence at every step along the ladder while simultaneously enhancing professional inclusion of URG members. In order to accomplish these goals chairs and departments need to strategically design targeted goals and policies for every step of the ladder. The Flow of URG Scientists up the Academic Ladder In a study of the chemistry faculties in 2004, Kuck and coworkers found that over 50% of the professors at the top 50 chemistry departments ranked by the NRC had received their degree from fewer than 10 doctoral granting institutions 11 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
(49). Such reliance on academic pedigrees has been seen as one of the factors that would-be URG faculty have not climbed the academic ladder in numbers commensurate with availability in the lower rungs of the ladder. That is, unlike in the leaky pipeline metaphor, the underrepresentation in the faculty is not an outcome of talented individuals leaking out of the system, but rather it is because they are being ignored (and not selected) when they are trying to climb to the next rung of the ladder For example, as a function of economic disparities in racial group in the U.S., a large percentage of URMs have disproportionately fewer opportunities to attend top universities for undergraduate degrees, and hence are less likely to hold a PhD from a leading doctoral-granting chemistry department. It is thus necessary to broaden the pool of qualified applicants with respect to academic pedigrees when conducting faculty searches, and thereby redress the imbalances that have heretofore led to disproportionately low representation by URG faculty. For chairs trying to affect positive change with respect to diversity inequities, effectively populating the Academic Ladder at the faculty level is difficult. As a function of the NDEW the following considerations were suggested for correcting this imbalance: (i) Arbitrarily populating the ladder is not enough. Pulling someone up a rung arbitrarily is not an effective response. URGs are not looking for handouts. Placing individuals in positions they are not prepared for does everyone involved a disservice; (ii) Some losses are good. It is important to note that when young career faculty members are poached it may reflect positively on the effectiveness of the department that they are leaving at developing and supporting excellent scientists; (iii) Individuals choose “better” jobs / working climates. If a department has made multiple competitive offers to URGs and few have accepted the offer, then it may have a professional climate problem. This means departments should ask the question, “Why were we not the number one choice?”; (iv) How does a department’s diversity climate compare to comparable choices outside of academia? Many of the top applicants are choosing industry over academia. Though either choices have singular and distinct benefits, it is important to recognize that an academic chemistry department must have policies that are competitive with industry; (v) Does a department have an effective mentor program? If not, it should. If it does, is the mentoring program both professionally vertical and horizontal? Does everyone on the ladder within a department have a mentor? Does everyone on the ladder have a village of mentors?; and (vi) Who bears the risk for failure and who is responsible for ensuring success for diversity inclusion and climate within your department? Without such accountability and a position specifically managing diversity and inclusion within a department, inclusive excellence is rarely achieved. Lessons from Industry Over the past twenty years industrial hiring of URG chemists has outpaced academia hiring. Industry has generally adopted practices influenced by social science and practices that advance professional climate at a fast clip. In order to more effectively compete with industry, it is important that the chemistry academic field adopts practices that match or exceed those from industry. One 12 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
result of the NDEWs is the identification of several such industrial practices that can be translated to academia: (i) It is important for chairs to have authentic conversations with their faculty; (ii) Top-down non-voluntary diversity training exercises tend to be ineffective. In order for department heads to teach or train their faculty members about professional diversity and inclusion the workshops need to have non-mandatory attendance (50); (iii) Mentoring is effective and should be implemented throughout the entire Academic Ladder. It should be intentional and organized. Mentoring should include peer-to-peer, senior mentors, etc.; and (iv) Affinity groups tend to be affective only if they have longitudinal participation. Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of Faculty Members Diversity is a planned event. It is rare that chemistry departments randomly become demographically diverse. As such, it is important to strategically develop a diverse department. As a function of the NDEW the following items were noted; (i) Every department strategy must begin with its recruitment approach. When recruiting faculty academic pedigrees should be contextualized, and individuals judged on what they do thereafter. Once faculty members enter the department, strategic retention procedures must be in place; (ii) Mentoring (peer-to peer, professionally senior mentors, and mentors from outside of the department) must be structured and available to all faculty members; (iii) It is important not to overburden URG faculty members with URG-specific service. If a department really needs a URG faculty member to perform URG-specific service, reward their efforts; (iv) Quantify the value of the individual to the collective and reward her/him/them for it; (v) Additional administrative responsibilities should be correlated with additional staff support; (vi) Ensure that evaluations are based on quantitative statements not “feelings” or schemas: and (vii) Relevant to hiring and promotion, provide resources to temper the overburdening of URG faculty
VII. Overall Outcomes from the Workshops and OXIDE’s Efforts One of the overarching goals for OXIDE is the improvement of approaches that the academic chemistry community employs when addressing diversity and inclusion. Through NDEW, OXIDE has enhanced the academic chemistry community’s exposure to peer-reviewed social science research, and engaged the faculty in translating suggested practices to the professional culture of chemistry. OXIDE introduced and disseminated ‘Recommendation for Chairs’ following NDEW2013. These recommendations involve tasks whose implementation can be accomplished through modest investments of time and resources and which are therefore well within the capabilities of most department chairs/heads. These recommendations were developed together with NDEW participants. As a result, each participant left NDEW with immediate steps that they could pursue within their respective departments. To highlight chairs that effectively implemented these recommendations, OXIDE introduced the ‘Diversity Catalyst Lecturer’ 13 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
(DCL) during NDEW2015. Since that time, the DCL has been awarded annually and winners have given talks pertaining to their efforts at NDEW. Since the introduction of this designation, OXIDE has also seen increased reporting from participants about their diversity and inclusion efforts post their attendance. Following NDEW2017, the number of departments that initiated programs to address diversity and inclusion within graduate students and tenure track faculty increased collectively by 39% (5). In order to better facilitate the adoption of these recommendations, departments are encouraged by OXIDE and increasingly other sources to create a structured ‘Diversity Action Plan.’ At NDEW2017, OXIDE worked with participants to create guidance on what elements should be included in those plans.
VIII. Concluding Remarks The biennial National Diversity Equity Workshops were started in 2011 as a deliberate attempt to employ the top-down hypothesis in an academic context, and extend it to accountability across a discipline rather than a single administrative unit. Prior to OIXIDE’s work there was evidence that the top-down hypothesis was critical to advancing diversity demographics in industry, and in one-time events in the chemistry community. The now 6-year experiment, covering 4 biennial NDEWs demonstrates the efficacy of the top-down hypothesis in causing sustained advances in inclusive excellence in a discipline through collective accountability. Overall representation in the academy has not grown as quickly over this period in large part because, the time constant of the faculties is longer —circa 20 years— than the current intervention. However, the representation in departments of the junior faculty has grown faster in concert with the starting of OXIDE’s NDEWs. Moreover, departments have implemented several programs —e.g., diversity committees, vertical affinity groups, inclusive messaging and inclusive mentoring— to dramatically improve diversity and inclusion as part of their excellence mission. As such, NDEWs are an implementation of the top-down hypothesis in chemistry, and its success provides additional evidence in support of the top-down hypothesis. Possible new direction for NDEWs focus on continued innovation in the content and deliberations, and on expansions of the community it convenes: (i) NDEWs could include greater participation from heads and chairs of departments outside of the most research intensive ones,; (ii) In order to more effectively assess department climates, OXIDE may offer NDEW participants the opportunity to participate in a chemistry field specific, Department Climate Survey. The purpose of the survey would be to obtain a baseline, which quantifies the current social and professional atmosphere within their respective departments. Departments that complete the survey can then participate in an NDEW-like workshop, which addresses issues specific to departments that share similar challenges in their professional climates; (iii) Beyond the recommendations that have been prepared and adjusted since NDEW2013, supplemental materials —including sample diversity action plans and sample policies/practices/procedures, which target increasing departmental diversity and inclusion— could be prepared and 14 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
provided to participants as read-aheads; and (iv) parallel NDEWs addressing discipline-specific challenges to diversity equity in other fields could be stages. Collectively, such new directions could further accelerate the impact of the NDEWs both in chemistry and in other STM areas.
Acknowledgments This work and the OXIDE program have been jointly supported by the NIH, DOE and NSF through NSF grant #CHE-1048939. Cognizant units are Pharmacology, Physiology, the Biological Chemistry Division at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) at the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Chemistry Division of the Math and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) at the National Science Foundation (NSF). We are delighted to thank all of the speakers at the NDEWS between 2011 and 2016, and the members of the OXIDE Advisory Board for all of their contributions. The past and present members of the latter include: Dr. Christopher J. Bannochie, Prof. Karl S. Booksh, Prof. Sheila E. Browne, Prof. Larry R. Dalton, Prof. Frank Dobbin, Prof. Luis Echegoyen, Dr. Archie W. Ervin, Prof. Stefan France, Prof. Michelle M. Francl, Prof. Paula T. Hammond, Prof. Christy Haynes, Prof. Malika Jeffries-EL, Prof. Catherine J. Murphy, Prof. Sharon L. Neal, Prof. Mary Jo Ondrechen, Prof. Geraldine L. Richmond, Dr. Celeste Rohfling, Prof. Denise Sekaquaptewa, Dr. Laurel Smith-Doerr, Prof. Jean Stockard, Prof. Timothy M. Swager, and Dr. Alveda Williams.
References 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hernandez, R.; Watt, S. Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; ACS Symposium Series 1169; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Chapter 19, pp 207−224. Iyer, S. K.; Stallings, D.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (2011-2017); Hernandez, R., Stallings, D., Iyer, S. K., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1277; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018; Chapter 2, pp 21−49. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (2011-2017); Hernandez, R., Stallings, D., Iyer, S. K., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1277; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018; Chapter 3, pp 51−77. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (2011-2017); Hernandez, R., Stallings, D., Iyer, S. K., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1277; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018; Chapter 4, pp 79−107. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (2011-2017); Hernandez, R., Stallings, D., Iyer, 15 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
6.
7.
8.
9. 10. 11.
12.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
19.
S. K., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1277; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018; Chapter 5, pp 109−140. Nelson, D. J.; Rogers, D. A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities; Oklahoma Univeristy: Norman, OK, 2004. http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/ Bios+Links/Krieger-rec4-Nelson+Rogers_Report.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) Nelson, D. J. A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities; University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK, 2007. http://drdonnajnelson.oucreate.com//diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/ 07Report.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). Hernandez, R.; Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K. Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success; ACS Symposium Series 1255; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Chapter 4, pp 101−112. Hernandez, R. Advancing The Chemical Sciences Through Diversity. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92, 45. Hernandez, R. Diversity in Academia: Solutions To Get There. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93, 40. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 2:Perspectives and Exemplary Programs; ACS Symposium Series 1256; American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 2017; Chapter 6, pp 67−75. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering Postdoc data source: S&E postdoctoral fellows in academic institutions, by field, citizenship, and sex; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/data/ tab8-1.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). Rovner, S. L. Women are 17% of chemistry faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89, 42–46. Rovner, S. L. Women Faculty Positions Edge Up. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92, 41–44. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. New Survey On Minority Chemistry Professors Released. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93, 2. Wang, L. Women crack the academic glass ceiling. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94, 18–21. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. Diversifying Academia. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93, 37–39. Guteri, F. Diversity in Science: Why It Is Essential for Excellence, Sci. Am. [Online]. Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc., 2014. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-in-science-why-it-isessential-for-excellence/ (accessed March 31, 2018). National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA. 16 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
20.
21. 22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27. 28.
29. 30.
31. 32.
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/data/tab7-4.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). Kalev, A.; Dobbin, F. Best Practices or Best Guesses?Assessing the Efficacy of CorporateAffirmative Action and Diversity Policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2006, 71, 589–617. Dobbin, F.; Kalev, A.; Kelly, E. Diversity Management in Corporate America. Contexts 2007, 6, 21–28. Dobbin, F.; Kim, S.; Kalev, A. You can’t always get what you need: Organizational determinants of diversity programs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2011, 76, 386–411. Webb, D. R. National Research Council (US) Chemical Sciences Roundtable. Minorities in the Chemical Workforce: Diversity Models that Work: A Workshop Report to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable; Published Online: E-Pub Date National Academies Press (US): Washington (DC), 2003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK36322/ (accessed March 31, 2018). Friend, C. M.; Houk, K. N. Workshop on Building Strong Academic Chemistry Departments Through Gender Equity; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2006. https://faculty.chemistry.harvard.edu/ files/friend-lab/files/nsf_genderequity_reportcover.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). Ali, H. B. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce: Achieving Racial & Ethnic Equity in Chemistry; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2008. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/952471 (accessed March 31, 2018). Bowman-James, K.; Benson, D. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce: Chemists, Chemical Engineers, and Materials Scientists with Disabilities; National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2009. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/diversity/Documents/ ChemistswithDisabilitesRpt_web_sm.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) Valian, V. Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1998. Constantine, M. G.; Sue, D. W. Perceptions of racial microaggressions among black supervisees in cross-racial dyads. J. Couns. Psychol. 2007, 54, 142–153. Wells, C. Microaggressions in the contect of academic communities. Seattle J. Soc. Just. 2013, 12, 319–348. Steele, C. M.; Aronson, J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 69, 797–811. Walton, G. M.; Cohen, G. L. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 82–96. Sackett, P. R.; DuBois, C. L.; Noe, A. W. Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 1991, 76, 263–267. 17 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
33. Turner, C. S. V.; González, J. C.; Wong, K. Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. J. Divers. High. Educ. 2011, 4, 199–211. 34. Sekaquaptewa, D.; Thompson, M. The Differential Effects of Solo Status on Members of High- and Low-Status Groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 2002, 28, 694–707. 35. Sekaquaptewa, D.; Waldman, A.; Thompson, M. Solo status and self-construal: being distinctive influences racial self-construal and performance apprehension in African American women. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic. Minor. Psychol. 2007, 13, 321–327. 36. Amodio, D.; Devine, P. G. Attitudes: insights from the new implicit measures; Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., Briñol, P., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, 2009; pp 193−226. 37. Rose, D. H.; Meyer, A. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development: Wakefield, MA, 2002. 38. Iwarsson, S.; Stahl, A.; Xabiver, R. Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 57–66. 39. Hugenberg, K.; Bodenhausen, G. V. Facing Prejudice: Implicit Prejudice and the Perception of Facial Threat. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14, 640–643. 40. Green, A. R.; Carney, D. R.; Pallin, D. J.; Ngo, L. H.; Raymond, K. L.; Iezzoni, L. I.; Banaji, M. R. Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007, 22, 1231–1238. 41. Devine, P. G.; Forscher, P. S.; Austin, A. J.; Cox, W. T. L. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 48, 1267–1278. 42. Chapman, E. N.; Kaatz, A.; Carnes, M. Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2013, 28, 1504–1510. 43. Moss-Racusin, C. A.; Dovidio, J. F.; Brescoll, V. L.; Graham, M. J.; Handelsman, J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109, 16474–16479. 44. Hunt, V.; Layton, D.; Prince, S. Diversity Matters; McKinsey & Company: New York, 2014. https://assets.mckinsey.com/~/media/ 857F440109AA4D13A54D9C496D86ED58.ashx (accessed March 31, 2018). 45. Carter, N. M. Why Diversity in Business Matters; Gender Summit 2013, Washington DC. 46. Chesler, N. C.; Barabino, G.; Bhatia, S. N.; Richards-Kortum, R. The Pipeline Still Leaks and More Than You Think: A Status Report on Gender Diversity in Biomedical Engineering. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2010, 38, 1928–1935. 47. Espinosa, L. L. Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM Majors and the College Experiences That Contribute to Persistence. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2011, 81, 209–241. 18 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
48. Miller, D. I.; Wai, J. The bachelor’s to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: a 30-year analysis. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 37. 49. Nolan, S. A.; Buckner, J. P.; Kuck, V. J.; Marzabadi, C. H. Analysis by Gender of the Doctoral and Postdoctoral Institutions of Faculty Members at the Top-Fifty Ranked Chemistry Departments. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 356. 50. Dobbin, F.; Kalev, A. Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work; Roberson, Q., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, 2013; pp 253−281.
19 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
