National Diversity Equity Workshop 2011: Lowering Barriers for all

Downloaded via UNIV OF ARIZONA on July 19, 2018 at 23:29:49 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 2

National Diversity Equity Workshop 2011: Lowering Barriers for all Underrepresented Chemistry Professors Srikant Iyer, Dontarie Stallings, 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) staged the first National Diversity Equity Workshop on January 24-26, 2011 (NDEW2011). NDEW2011 was the first Diversity Equity Workshop hosted by OXIDE driven by the so-called top-down hypothesis in which the middle managers of the chemical academic discipline —viz. department chairs and heads—are deliberately engaged in the process of advancing diversity and inclusion. At NDEW2011, for the first time, all biases and barriers affecting four historically underrepresented groups (URGs) —gender, under-represented minority status, disability and sexual orientation—were addressed within the same workshop. Reports on the extent of the under-representation and the inequitable barriers that led to it provided a basis for the need to discover solutions —that is, policies and procedures— that lower barriers, and enable representation in the faculties comparable to availability. We also report on the overall program highlights and evaluation of the workshop. This evidence-based disciplinary approach led us to advocate for interventions that will reduce barriers to success across all URG cohorts, chief of which was the realization that department heads and chairs need to focus their efforts on advancing the climate by addressing barriers that affect faculty from all of the URGs. These findings are readily portable to faculty in other disciplines.

© 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 2011 National Diversity Equity Workshop represents the first in a biennial series of diversity workshops designed for chairs of leading research-intensive (RI) chemistry departments organized by the Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE). NDEW2011 was the first OXIDE driven initiative where the top-down hypothesis (described in Chapter 1) was employed to engage chairs on recent and past findings on diversity equity and diversity solutions—that is, policies and procedures for lowering diversity inequities (1). The underlying goal of this effort is to flatten diversity inequities by engaging department leaders to promote changes in departments and institutions. NDEW2011 was held on January 24-26, 2011, in Arlington, VA. Their Chairs or a delegated tenured professor represented forty-four chemistry departments, and all participants are listed in Appendix 1. This workshop was the first of such workshops for chairs in which all four broad areas of underrepresentation (binary gender, URM, gender identity-and-orientation, and disability) were included in the same workshop to discuss unique and overlapping issues. At NDEW2011, department chairs and their representatives worked together to assess and create changes in the academic culture to advance an equitable and inclusive environment. For example, diversity was introduced as a figure of merit to evaluate the success (or ranking) of a department (1, 2). A thorough review of the previous workshops focusing on individual URGs —i.e., gender, URM and individuals with disabilities— was provided by chairs of those past workshops (3–5). The consideration of gender identity and orientation was added to the list of targeted URGs despite the fact that no such previous workshop had taken place. Implicit bias, solo status, and schemas were recapitulated as barriers commonly faced by all URG chemists inequitably. Among the key findings by workshop participants were, (i) the need for departmental diversity committees; (ii) flexible work-life balance; (iii) a greater appreciation for how to leverage a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) and other senior administrators within a university to advance inclusive excellence within a department; and (iv) recognition of the value of consistent data tracking. In this chapter, we summarize the work presented by speakers at NDEW2011. We also summarize the workshop elements and the responses from participants and provide a perspective on the efficacy of NDEW2011 as a community-wide intervention. The state of diversity within the leading RI chemistry departments at the time of the workshop is also reviewed so as to provide context for the compelling need to redress demographic imbalances. Participants worked together to develop programs and policies that can be easily adopted by the chairs and heads to reduce diversity inequities. We conclude with a discussion of how these recommendations are rooted in social science and how they can be contextualized to advance inclusive excellence in chemistry departments.

22 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

II. Background Demographics of RI Chemistry Departments in 2011 Since 2000, Chemical and Engineering News has used several mechanisms to report on the representation of faculty from under-represented groups in chemistry (6–14). Nelson also obtained one of the earliest data sets for addressing the demographics of the pipeline in the NSF top-50 research intensive (RI) schools as ranked according to federally-funded research expenditures in chemistry (15). The Nelson diversity survey in 2007 found that women represented 13.7% of faculty at RI chemistry departments (16). The representation was low compared to the 32.4% availability of female doctoral candidates in 2002-2005 (17). Nelson disaggregated the faculty data to list the percentage of female professors at each faculty rank: 21.7% for assistant professors, 21.3% for associate professors and 9.7% for full professors (16). Through the pipeline analysis, Nelson also noted that the representation of women in the PhD pool of women increased from 26.3% (for 1986-1995) to 32.4% (for 1996-2005) (15). These numbers suggest that increasing the representation of women in chemistry faculties requires more than just an improvement in the demographics at the earliest stages in the pipeline, and this motivates the need for systematically identifying barriers and implementing new diversity solutions across the entire pipeline (18).

Table 1. Gender Demographic Data of Faculty Representation at the NSF-Top 50 Chemistry Programs Collected by Nelson for AY 2006-07 (16) and OXIDE (14, 19) for AY 2009-10 (Based on Spending by Chemistry Research Programs in the Corresponding Year) Professional Rank

AY 2006-07 Nelson Data

AY 2009-10 OXIDE Data

Assistant Professors

21.7%

22.6%

Associate Professors

21.3%

20.5%

Full Professors

9.7%

11.4%

All Professors

13.7%

15.0%

Nelson’s studies were complemented by the yearly assessments of the top-50 chemistry departments conducted by Chemical & Engineering News (and OXIDE as of 2009) which found a slow yearly increase in the gender representation of faculty in the top-50 chemistry departments on about .5%/year (6–14, 18). For example, the data collected by OXIDE in Table 1 (14, 19) shows a 15.9% gender representation of all professors in the NSF top-50 RI chemistry departments in the 2009-10 academic year, showing a 1.3 percent increase compared to the 2006-07 academic year. 23 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The Nelson Diversity survey also found that URMs represented 3.6% of the faculty at NSF top-50 RI chemistry departments for 2007 —which represented a 0.5% increase since 2003 (15, 16). The URM representation of graduate students was about 6% in 2006 (17). Thus the mismatch in faculty representation compared to availability at the doctoral level seen for female professors was also found for URM professors. The representation of chemists with disabilities (CWD) and chemists from the LGBTQIQA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, intersex, questioning, allies, etc.) community in RI chemistry departments has been, and remains, difficult to measure. There is significant under-reporting for a number of reasons, including the fact that individuals are not required to report either their disability status or their sexual orientation (5, 20, 21). As a consequence, the chemistry community has yet to produce data sets that accurately reflects the number of individuals within the CWD and the LGBTQIQA+ cohorts (22), and no data about these groups was provided directly to NDEW2011. However, it was recognized by workshop participants that the fact that the data is difficult to obtain reflects the existence of barriers to members of these communities. This underreporting is in itself a kind of underrepresentation.

Past Workshops Focused on Chemistry Faculty NDEW2011 was built upon three previous diversity equity workshops for chairs and heads of RI chemistry departments (3–5). They were supported by the cognizant units in the federal agencies that also supported this work (see acknowledgements.) Each of these workshops focused on particular URG cohorts: gender equity, racial and ethnic equity, and disability equity, respectively. Their findings were critical to advancing diversity equity in chemistry departments. The sustained series of biennial workshops of chairs —for which NDEW2011 was the first— was created in order to maintain the effort for identifying barriers to all URG cohorts, creating new solutions, and sharing effective practices across the community. The three prior workshops were critical to the formation of the re-imagined NDEW series, and are summarized here.

1. Gender Equity: Workshop on Building Strong Academic Chemistry Department through Gender Equity (3) The goal of the 2006 workshop, co-chaired by Houk and Friend, was “to develop and implement strategies to significantly increase the number of women chemists in tenured academic positions in research universities and eliminate gender biases that negatively impact their career progress.” The target participants for the workshop were the chairs from the NSF top-50 RI research-based schools. Their content was aimed at uncovering the reasons for gender inequities and barriers to inclusion for chemistry faculty at the departmental, institutional, and funding levels. They included working breakout sessions so as to allow 24 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

participants to develop possible diversity solutions to reduce those identified inequities. At the departmental level, the 2006 workshop identified gender diversity issues around: (i) measures used to attain gender equity in faculty hiring, recruitment, promotion, and retention; (ii) strategies that can be used to develop the careers of young scientists and to identify future female faculty; (iii) the tenure rate of women compared to men; (iv) policies that incentivize the retention of women at universities beyond being tenured; and (vi) practices that help promote advancement of faculty and identification of potential leaders, such as the development of mentoring opportunities . At the institutional level, the 2006 workshop identified gender diversity issues around: (i) dual hiring; (ii) developing careers of graduate students and post-docs to enrich the pipeline; and (iii) the promotion of work-life balance and facilitation of childbearing or adoption for faculty, post-docs, and graduate students. At the funding level, the 2006 workshop identified gender diversity issues around: (i) ways to reduce discrimination in the peer review system; (ii) the possible use of Title IX to assure no gender bias exists in evaluating grant proposals; and (iii) the use of federal funding programs —such as ADVANCE— to support campus-wide non-affirmative-action approaches to hire female faculty. A key finding from the 2006 workshop was the identification of a disparity between the perceptions of chairs and female faculty on diversity issues within chemistry departments. In comparison with their peers, female professors had a stronger sense of feeling unwelcomed by department climate, felt less supported in attracting the best graduate students, and felt less involved in important departmental decisions. Another key finding was the conclusion that to meet gender equity, departments do not need to carry out ‘preferential hiring.’ Instead, the need to integrate women into the department is paramount for departments to retain faculty (3). A critical outcome of the 2006 workshop was the construction of possible action items that would reduce gender inequities: (i) double the percentage of women applicants; (ii) establish mechanisms for career development of young faculty; (iii) consider personal obligations in academic scheduling and planning; (iv) spread awareness to educate faculty and department residents about the accumulation of disadvantages faced by women; (v) make diversity an academic priority while hiring and retention of faculty; (vi) develop policies that facilitate spousal hiring; (vii) provide avenues for mid- and senior- level faculty for leadership roles; and (vii) recognize the importance of and advocate for institutional child care and support. The stated expectation from the workshop, and commitment from the chairs and chair representatives was that participants would apply two or more action items at their respective departments and report the outcomes on a website form supported by the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists (COACh). From their assessment, COACh later reported that the 2006 Workshops led to a higher awareness of gender related issues in chemistry departments (23).


2. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce: Achieving Racial and Ethnic Equity in Chemistry (4) The 2007 workshop was co-chaired by Turro and Warner. The workshop’s primary goal was to identify and expand diversity solutions that increase the number of Under-Represented Minorities (URM) who successfully transition from PhD completion to the professoriate. Participation in the workshop primarily included the chairs and their representatives from the NSF top-50 RI research-based departments in chemistry. As this was held only one year after the 2006 workshop and only a fraction of chairs had turned over in their role, the participant list was very similar to that of the 2006 workshop on gender equity, with only small changes in the inclusion of different subject matter experts and speakers. The 2007 workshop identified several issues related to racial and ethnic equity for chemistry faculty: (i) the impact and existence of implicit bias; (ii) the nature of the working environment; (iii) strategies for recruitment and retention of faculty; and (iv) development of mentoring professionals. The workshop highlighted previous findings (15, 16) that the numbers for URMs at faculty and professorial level had stayed the stagnant for close to a decade. This led to the conclusion that the strategies used for hiring and retention had to be revisited, and the implementation of solutions aimed at increasing URM participation in the faculties had been ineffective. In particular, participants suggested that the apparent failure of institution/organizations to make commitments to change the professional climate or to change hiring and retention practices likely accounted for the stagnation in URM faculty representation. For example, Turro observed that in the most recent hiring cycle for chemistry departments at the time, 4 out of 125 African-American scientists with PhDs and 10 out 224 Hispanic/Latino/Latin scientists with PhDs were hired by the top 32 universities (4, 16). He thereby suggested that the community needed to retain more of that talent in the pipeline, if the chemistry faculty demographics are to change towards commensurability with availability. The transition to the professoriate often goes through a postdoctoral period and a key finding of the workshop was the recognition that the URM representation in the postdoc pool is significantly lower than in the pool of completed PhDs. As in the 2006 workshop on Gender Diversity, COACh conducted studies surveying the 2007 workshop. They found that URM faculty as compared to their peers: (i) faced additional difficulties when trying to attract top-flight graduate students; (ii) faced greater bias in the peer-review process of grants and papers; and (iii) were excluded from important departmental and institutional decisions. These results suggest that organizational and institutional changes need to be implemented to improve the representation and promotion of URM faculty throughout the pipeline. Outcomes of the 2007 workshop included the overarching recommendation that leadership needs to take a greater interest in developing and acting upon strategies that foster a more diverse faculty. Some of the proposed solutions were: (i) increased and systematic mentoring for URM students, postdocs, and faculty; (ii) the creation and support of professional networks that identifies and supports 26 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

excellent URM students, postdocs and faculty; (iii) the creation of a clearinghouse of URM scientists that could be shared with recruiters and hiring committees; (iv) the removal of practices which often overburden URM faculty with respect to service commitments to their departments, institutions and the profession; and (v) the establishment of mechanisms that correct for the existence of inequities —such as from implicit bias and stereotype threat— in annual evaluations (and other assessments) faced by URM faculty. Speakers and organizers appealed to participants that “diversity and excellence can coexist in an organization” provided that the academic culture is supportive and helps all individuals succeed.

3. Workshop on Excellence Empowered by a Diverse Academic Workforce: Chemists, Chemical Engineering, and Materials Scientists with Disabilities (5) The 2009 workshop was co-chaired by Bowman-James, Benson and Mallouk. They addressed the lack of diversity in the chemistry community with respect to individuals with disabilities. As with the other workshops, their participants also included chairs from the NSF top-50 RI research based although the actual participants had changed due to the passage of time. The goals for the workshop were to raise awareness of the issues facing people with disabilities in the scientific workplace and provide ways to improve climate by learning about accommodations. At the 2009 workshop, the distinction between visible and non-visible disabilities was emphasized. Visible disabilities include physical impairments —such as missing, or non-functional limbs, and sensory impairments (blindness or deafness). Non-visible disabilities include emotional and psychological impairments—for example, depression and bipolar disorders. While it is difficult to hide visible disabilities, non-visible disabilities often go unreported or undocumented and are subject to difference implicit biases. The organizers of the 2009 workshop endeavored to provide an analysis of the representation of chemists with disabilities through the academic pipeline analogous to the data that had been reported at the previous workshops on gender, and race and ethnicity. Data sets counting individuals with disabilities in science tend to be incomplete and unreliable due to different criteria used by each university and the degree to which there is underreporting. As a consequence, the representation of chemists with disabilities was found to be too small to assess in a given year. Instead, 10 years of data sets were compiled and aggregated. They found and reported (5) that 11% of STEM graduate students have a disability, 7% of graduate students have a disability, and 1% of PhD recipients have a disability. At the faculty level, 8% of chemistry professors have a reported disability. However, this number is age-dependent as very few professors reported disabilities in the early parts of their career. The number grows because of acquired disabilities which occur as a result of aging, and the willingness of faculty to reveal non-visible disabilities as they progress through their careers. Though the aggregated data set is incomplete and difficult to interpret because of the effects of acquired disabilities, it is consistent with a key finding from the 2009 workshop that individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in the academic workplace. 27 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

The 2009 workshop acknowledged the importance of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates an equal opportunity employment to people with disabilities, towards broadening the representation of RI faculty. The ADA also protects the confidentiality and privacy of the individuals from stigma and misperception of disabilities. However, this requires striking the balance between treating individuals with disabilities like other workers, protecting their privacy and making requested accommodations readily available. The 2009 workshop organizers also expanded the definition of what counts as a disability by way of including individuals with learning disabilities. This latter group is currently the largest of the disability subgroups and therefore the most visible such group. Nevertheless accommodations need to be made to provide a climate that gives such individuals the opportunity to succeed, and to hire them without them having to invoke ADA guidelines. A key finding of the 2009 workshops was that the inability for organizations to provide accommodations discourages individuals from pursuing a field of interest and negatively affects their persistence in the academic pipeline. A second key finding was the need for tailoring accommodations to individuals. To this end the idea of Universal design was discussed, where the notion that “one size fits all” cannot be applied to someone who requires wheelchair accessibility compared to a blind individual or an individual with anxiety. This entails creating products and climate that are usable by all individuals to the greatest possible extent without the need for accommodations or modifications whenever possible. A third key finding was the need for chairs to work with university administrators to help develop accommodations for individuals with mid-career disabilities and to provided flexible sabbaticals in short-term disability cases. Finally, as in past workshops, mentoring was found to be a critical mechanism for increasing the representations of chemists with disabilities through the academic pipeline

III. Methods NDEW2011 was structured around four Focus Sessions, talks from funding agency representatives, keynote speakers, and breakout group sessions. The program, listing all of the speakers and their talk titles has been provided in Appendix 2. The four Focus Sessions, described in more detail below, were aimed at addressing biases and barriers faced by URGs and interventions to improve hiring, retention and promotion of URG. Agency representatives presented their plans and interest in improving diversity in academia, and provided an additional draw for chairs to attend. Keynote speakers discussed personal and professional experiences related to diversity equity and possible tools for improve diversity equity. All of these inputs provided a base over which participants could develop findings and recommendations during breakout sessions as described in more detail below.


Focus Sessions Each of the four focus sessions of NDEW2011 were generally structured around three 30-minute presentations from subject matter experts, and a 30-minute panel session with the speakers. The panel discussions allowed for free discussion between the speakers and the participants intended to facilitate the translation of the material to the chemistry discipline. The one exception to this overall structure was focus session 3. It was fielded by four speakers, each representing one of NDEW’s targeted areas of underrepresentation, speaking for 25 minutes, followed by a 25-minute panel session. All four sessions are briefly recapitulated below, and the details of the speakers and their talk titles are included in Appendix 2.

Focus Session 1 (Contributing Factors) This session featured three psychologists who reported on their quantitative and qualitative work in areas related to implicit bias, schemas, solo status, and stereotype threat. Smyth described experiments and data that supported the existence of implicit bias, and provided a foundation for understanding the origin of biases and barriers (24). Sekaquaptewa provided quantitative and qualitative data validating the effects of solo status as experienced by individuals belonging to minority groups and its impact on retention of faculty (25–27). Valian described how schemas and stereotype threat act as biases hindering the professional growth of individuals who are members of minority cohorts (28). She reported her findings related to the observed slower rate of professional advancement for women as compared to their male counterparts. She also found that these trends correlate with gendered schemas which, in turn, result from implicit biases.

Focus Session 2 (Interventions) The speakers at the second focus session described common practices in the workplace that hinder the progress of URG professionals in comparison to their peers. Dobbin reported the existence of a large number of ineffective but common practices in corporate industry. He noted that many organizations have focused too much time and money on diversity training even though that intervention has been shown to be ineffective (29). Stockard described the importance of double-blind reviewing —that is, when neither the authors nor the reviewers know about each other’s identities— as an effective practice that should be utilized in the assessments of journal articles and grant proposals so as to eliminate biases that tend to disfavor women and other URG scientists disproportionately (30, 31). Burghstahler introduced the concept of universal design, and the importance of its adoption to improve workplace conditions for everyone and people with disabilities in particular (32).


Focus Session 3 (Reports from Previous Workshops) This focus session described previous work done with the chemistry community to bring about awareness of biases and barriers faced by URG professors in the workshops recapitulated in Section II. Houk summarized the results and findings of the first of the workshops that engaged department heads and chairs from RI chemistry departments to address diversity inequities. They focused on gender equity exclusively (3). Warner described the second such workshop, and its focus on under-represented minorities. Booksh described the third workshop in the series, and its focus on individuals with disabilities (4, 5). Although no such workshop had been previously held with a focus on advancing equity for the LGBTQIQA+ community, Wagner discussed biases and barriers faced by individuals within that community. He also discussed effective practices and solutions implemented in industry that had supported the LGBTQIQA+ scientists. Altogether, this focus session set the stage for the practice introduced at NDEW 2011 for convening chairs of RI chemistry departments to discuss diversity equity across all URGs, and to work together to uncover policies and procedures that can effectively be implemented in their departments to reduce inequities and increase representation of URG faculty towards commensurability with availability.

Focus Session 4 (Demographics and Assessments) This focus session described the demographic data collected, the methodologies used to assess said data, and the efficacy of surveys. Nelson discussed the approaches that she and her team had used to collect whole[-population demographics data for faculty and summarized their findings which we reviewed above in Section II (16). Kaler reported on the then-recent rankings of academic department by the National Research Council Survey (33), Perhaps ironically, while their assessment function included several variables that correlated with diversity, these variables had small cofactors with the rankings obtained from their survey group. One possible interpretation of this negative result is that the respondents were ranking according to their biases which ipso facto did not correlate with inclusive excellence. Stockard closed the session by reporting on the self-reported assessment of what departments had done since the last workshops as reported in pre-assessment surveys..

Breakout Groups Each group was given a breakout scenario, which was used as a template to develop a discussion resulting to identify inequities and develop appropriate actionable policies towards and mechanisms to assess their efficacy. The groups were also encouraged to develop scenarios based on their experiences as chairs or leaders in their field. 30 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

At NDEW2011, participants were divided into eight breakout groups, and each was charged with identifying barriers and recommend solutions to advance diversity equity for a designated cohort. Participants were given the option to identify their preferences prior to the workshop. The resulting eight groupings of roughly equal numbers of participants are indicative of their relative priorities and roles: graduate student recruitment (Groups B1 East and B1 West), faculty recruitment (Groups B3 North and B3 South), graduate student retention (Group B4), faculty climate and retention (Group B6), graduate student promotion/subsequent career success (Group B7) and faculty promotion/subsequent career success (Group B9). The comparatively large interest in faculty (and hiring in particular) was reflective of the participating chairs, while the interest in graduate student climate was reflective of the participation of graduate committee chairs who had been designated as department representatives. The tasks for the Breakout Groups were broken out as follows:

Breakout Session A Each group first elected a leader and a reporter among the department chairs and chair representatives in the group. The breakout leader was tasked with running the group’s discussion, and the reports was tasked with summarizing the group’s deliberations in writing and as presentations to all participants. The second task in the session was the identification of a demographic group (or groups) to target as part of their analysis. For example, Group B1 East chose to consider the recruitment of URM graduate students. The composition of the participants among the eight groups was sufficiently varied, that they naturally chose to address barriers to different URG subgroups, though the majority of the groups selected issues with respect to URM or female scientists. The third and final task was the identification of inequities affecting the selected URG within their assigned topic.

Breakout Session B Each group was charged with prioritizing the inequities they had earlier identified so as to propose policy changes and mechanisms to redress them. They also discussed mechanisms to assess the efficacy of their suggested changes.

Breakout Session C Each group was charged with designing a structured approach to implementing their proposed policy and to measure the impact of the implemented program on their targeted URG within their assigned topic.


Breakout Reporting Following sessions B and C, each reporter summarized the main findings from their breakout sessions, and proposed solutions to help improve diversity and to reduce barriers and biases for their targeted URG within their assigned topic. This allowed effective strategies and concerns to transfer between the breakout groups.

IV. Barriers and Assessments Barriers Faced by URGs Biases and barriers faced by URGs have disproportionately affected their recruitment, retention and promotion along the academic pipeline. In order to correct for these inequities, it is important to first understand where and what are the underlying causes. Only then can one construct an evidence-based hypothesis for the introduction of a solution—that is, a policy or procedure—aimed at promoting inclusive excellence. This foundational work does not have to be reinvented because much can be learned from the social science literature on the negative impact of biases and barriers on hiring, retention and promotion of individuals from minority groups. Thus OXIDE engaged social scientists and behavioral psychologists to inform NDEW2011 participants—that is, department chairs and their representatives—about the many biases and barriers faced by URG professionals generally, and to engage with departmental chairs to translate those findings to the context of the career ladder of chemistry graduate students, postdocs and professors. The biases and barriers primarily addressed at NDEW2011 were implicit bias, solo status, stereotype threat, and schemas. These topics were defined and discussed in a broad context in Chapter 1 (34), and we report in more detail the findings from the NDEW2011 speakers below. Implicit bias is an insidious factor in the creation of diversity inequities because nearly everyone has them, and on average they are tilted in the direction of disfavoring the progress of URG professionals, and scientists along the academic track, in particular. The first step towards addressing implicit bias is to make yourself explicitly aware of your own bias. Smyth reported on the existence of an on-line tool, called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which can assess a person’s implicit associations and bias (24, 35, 36). The IAT is a computer-based quantitative methodology in which the relative rate of response for different types of associations are measured. Faster response rates are correlated with greater association. While Project Implicit, founded by Greenwald, Banaji and Nosek, provides the IAT for the use of individuals to assess themselves, the aggregated data of the study is useful for determining whether there is collective bias in a given group. For example, the IAT can be used with stereotypes and counter-stereotype pairs to assess the existence of implicit biases according to such stereotypes at an unconscious level both individually and collectively by a given set of people (37). A the key finding by Project Implicit is that both men and women respondents of the IAT show identical stereotype behavior. More specifically, 70% of both women and men associate the stereotype of science as being male, and associated the stereotype of arts as being female. However, a 32 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

key finding from the study was that when only those respondents with academic identity were considered, then women showed less implicit bias in favor of male scientists then men. Nosek and coworkers noted that this is consistent with the observation that the presence of a male scientist reinforces the stereotype that more men are in sciences, whereas a female scientist is a counter-stereotype (35). Sekaquaptewa rationalized why a ‘one minority is enough policy’ is not a good policy. Such a policy places a minority member in a perennial solo status facing a level of scrutiny, heightened visibility and other challenges that majority group members do not. Sekaquaptewa reported on the social psychological experiences of individuals from minority groups working or learning in domains in which their minority group is significantly underrepresented. Such individuals consequently often find themselves in solo status situations in which they are the only person who represents their particular URG. In such solo status, an individual can be burdened by the perception (or expectation) from the rest of the group that said individual is a prototype of their group. Worse still, are the possibilities that they may even be expected to perform according to stereotype, or that they experience stereotype threat in which their perceived actions are seen as confirming the majority group’s stereotypes. For example, a case of gender stereotype threat can arise when both men and women are tested on their mathematical abilities in a situation in which they are made aware of their genders. Those women who don’t do well affirm the stereotype of being unsuited for diagnostic testing and her stress condition is heightened for her next test making it more likely that she will continue to underperform. As this threat condition doesn’t exist for the men, after only a few cycles of these tests a differential performance between men and women arises regardless of whether one was there in the first place (26, 27). Valian reported on her findings about the role of gender schemas in slowing the rates of advancement for women compared to men (28). Schemas are psychological traits assigned to a given groups. They can be misinformed by stereotype, and can be used as a stereotype threat if they are forced upon a particular individual. As an example of the negative effects of gender schemas, Valian noted that “men are seen as capable of independent action, as doing things for a reason and getting down to the business at hand. Women are seen as nurturing, communal and expressing their feelings.” As such, the application of the gender schema can devalue a female candidate’s strength as a leader in comparison with a male candidate simply because of gender and not according to their actual relative merits. Thus, Valian argued that gender schemas need to be normalized in order to lower diversity inequities in the promotion of women professors to leadership roles in their departments. In a professional setting, women lose whether the schemas are congruent with their actions because they are therefore not associated with the results that they produce, of they are incongruent because they cause a clash with expectations leading to doubt about authenticity. For example, when schemas clash, it tends to show up in the evaluation of the competence of an individual (38, 39). Valian described an experiment in which men and women were asked to rate candidates (mixture of male and female) for the assistant vice president position of an aircraft company (40). Half of the evaluators were given information about the company, the job description, and general information about the candidates. The other 33 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

half of the evaluators were also given performance reviews of the candidates that always described them as stellar performers. The evaluators were asked to measure the competence and likability of the candidates. Stockard and coworkers found that evaluators who didn’t get information pertaining to the results of the performance review rated the man as more competent than the woman at similar rates as when the performance reviews were included, even though the evaluations were identical (22). When there’s any ambiguity about someone’s performance in a professional job, men are rated higher than women. Valian found that gender schemas play an even larger role when there is more judgmental ambiguity (41). In the second condition of the experiment by Stockard and coworkers, where the candidate’s evaluation as a stellar performer is provided to evaluators, they are responsive to the data and do indeed rate the man and the woman as equally competent. Even in this situation, however, the woman candidate was rated as significantly less likeable than the man. Evaluators also tended to rate the women as more hostile than the man. As a consequence, the overall ratings favored the mail candidates despite the fact that they were equally rated for competence. So women who succeed in a male dominated profession can be seen as competent or more, but are perceived as not likeable (41). Likability plays a huge role in one’s professional pathway. She concluded that when an individual demonstrates that they are both likable and competent, they are rated higher and have a higher probability of being on the fast track with respect to their career advancement. Meanwhile, Wagner extended the idea of schemas to the LGBTQIA+ community. As a consequence of the fact that non-heteronormative identities are often hidden, both hidden and overt biases by management can strongly negatively affect climate and lead to reduced recruitment, retention and promotion of LGBTQIA+ professionals. Wagner thus argued that the application of negative schemas resulted not only in a loss to the individual but in reduced benefits and profitability to the companies that underemployed them. Assessments Used To Measure Diversity Kaler presented the outcomes from the survey run by National Research Council that assessed the research based doctorate programs in the United States, and which had previously produced and published university-level rankings within the STEM disciplines (33). The goal of the survey was to help administrators, faculty and funding agencies to assess quality of PhD programs, while providing information for prospective students to identifying PhD programs that best suited their needs. The programs were assessed using 20 characteristics with respect to four broad categories: (i) faculty quality (number of publications, grants, interdisciplinary research and awards), (ii) student characteristics (GRE scores, number of individuals with financial support), (ii) program characteristics (number of PhDs graduated, placements of students, health insurance premiums provided and number of student activities), and (iv) diversity. Notably, the fourth category included five characteristics that were related to diversity: (i) the racial and ethnic representation of the program faculty, (ii) the gender representation of the faculty, (iii) the racial and ethnic representation of the student population, 34 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

(iv) the gender representation of the student population, and (v) the percentage of international students. The NRC group developed reduced functions to contract the values of the 20 characteristics into collective scores on: (i) the scientific environment or productivity; (ii) the departmental environment; and (iii) the demographic representation (33). The programs were ranked using two methodologies: (1) S- (or survey based) Rankings —where faculty were asked to rank the 20 characteristics in determining the quality of a program. (2) R- (or regressions based) Rankings —where groups of randomly selected faculty were asked to rate the quality of a sample of representative programs in their respective fields. A regression analysis of these rankings was then employed to construct the relative weights assigned to the 20 characteristics. Perhaps not surprisingly, the S-Rankings and R-Rankings did not agree, thus indicating that there was a mismatch between the reported weights on the relative importance of program characteristics with respect to ranking quality, and the perception of quality when experts were not made aware of the specific characteristics. These implicit biases extend to the weights on the diversity-related characteristics in either ranking approach. Specifically, these weights were found to be small (and near zero). This suggests that diversity was not being used assess program quality, and points to the need for developing new ways of assessing program that weighs inclusive excellence. Wagner described the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) as a tool for rating businesses with respect to their treatment of LGBTQ+ employees, consumers, and investors (42). It takes into account: (i) written policies of non-discrimination, inclusion of sexual orientation, and gender identity awareness, (ii) gender expression, (iii) parity in domestic partner benefits, (iv) appropriate and respectful advertising supporting LGBTQ+ community, and (v) rejection of activities that undermine equal rights and goals of LGBT individuals. The CEI provides a tool for individuals to identify organizations that are inclusive and provide the appropriate support for all individuals to perform free of bias at work. The companies are rated on a scale of 0-100 with a value of 100 meaning that a company is shown to have polices that fully support the LGBTQ+ community. Wagner suggested that the extension of the CEI to universities would provide a mechanism for assessing LGBTQIQA+ equity now and in the future.

V. Interventions As stated above, once the barriers to diversity equity are known and contextualized, then a hypothesis can be made and tested as to what changes can be introduced to redress them in chemistry departments. Measurables of success include effects on diversity climate—that is the sense of engagement and happiness of all members of the group—and shifts in the demographics of the faculty. In the social science community, such changes in policies or procedures are called interventions. That term was used in the workshop and is the name of this section in order to make connection to social science. However, chemistry department chairs repelled at this term. As such, the term “solution” 35 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

was adopted by OXIDE, and is the term that is used generally throughout this chapter. Below, we report on the interventions —that is, solutions— identified by social scientists and chemists at NDEW2011 as possible strategies for decreasing diversity inequities in chemistry departments. Interventions by Social Scientists Smyth described a study was carried out in U.S. orchestras, where blind auditions dramatically changed the relative hiring of female musicians leading to equitable representation (43). It illustrates how the existence of gender schemas and gender stereotypes affect decision-making. Smyth remarked that “it’s more about re-doing associations than undoing ones we have, being associated with new and counter-stereotypical pieces in the environment, and elevating those creatively when we can so as to look for ways to adjust our environments to build new associations.” He added that “articulating our values matters as it seems to have an influence on our implicit biases.” He pointed out that the goal is not to get rid of bias, but to understand and be vigilant of its presence. One can thereby leverage implicit behaviors such that they don’t result in biases that act as barriers while nurturing and cultivating our ability to rate talent. Dobbin provided a list of the many diversity interventions popularly used at corporations, and the effectiveness of those interventions. He surveyed workforce diversity in 829 workplaces between 1971 to 2002 (29), and amassed a complete data set on workforce diversity and interventions to determine correlations. Dobbin found that the most popular interventions are: (i) creating rules about how to hire, promote, and fire people, which were adopted either in reaction to equal employment opportunity law or as part of a diversity program such that it’s impossible for managers to act on their biases, (ii) diversity training, where training exercises are geared to eradicate biases, and (iii) diversity performance evaluations, where managers were rewarded for improving or promoting diversity through, for example, so-called diversity bonuses. He found that these practices did not result in increased diversity. Upon interviewing various HR managers and managers at these firms, he found that the managers were made to believe that they were to be blamed for causing the problem in spite of their efforts to jump hoops to make an efficient environment. The training gave the manager a perception that they were biased and not doing a good job of promoting diversity. Based on the evaluation of various surveys, he determined that necessary interventions needed to go beyond diversity management and to rethink management science (29). Dobbin did find intervention that were successful at improving diversity demographics. Mentoring programs that provided equal access to all members of the working group were generally successful at increasing representation in the companies he surveyed (15). The introduction of affinity groups had mixed success. Dobbin found the affinity groups for women tended to improve female representation and advancement in the company, but it had small and sometimes negative effects on other minority groups. He hypothesized that this might be due to the lack of senior management engagement in the affinity groups not supporting women. This led to the recommendation that affinity groups, if implemented as an intervention, should be structured to include vertical 36 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

representation—that is, senior or high-ranking members of the department or university. Dobbin noted that diversity task forces tended to promote diversity as they were usually composed of managers from various departments who could brainstorm and transfer effective solutions. There has also been success in having a diversity officer who is fully supported to utilize various theoretical and practical approaches to develop a culture of diversity and inclusivity. In the academy, the peer-review system is seen as a critical evaluation mechanism that is free of bias. Stockard reported on her work revealing the fairness of the peer review system and addressing the question of whether it meets the ideal norm of universalism or if biases have crept into peer-review evaluation? Her work focuses on the commonly-used single-blind process —in which an anonymous reviewer knows the identity of the author,— and the less-common double blind peer review process—in which the reviewers and author are anonymous to each other (44). She assessed these peer review processes along three dimensions: (i) prestige of individual/ institution, (ii) national origin/language, and (iii) gender. Stockard found that reviewers were generally predisposed to accept articles for publication, and the articles that were readily accepted were from high impact authors in the sense that their previous papers have high citation counts (44). At the American Heart Association meetings, the review type was changed from single blind to double blind. They tested the abstracts that were accepted before the change and after the change. They noticed that prior to the change, abstracts from prestigious schools were more often accepted than others, but that favorable factor vanished once the review was switched to double blind (31). Another study found that the switch from single blind to double blind led to equal acceptance when comparing publications coming from English speaking countries versus non-English speaking countries (30). A meta-analysis of grant and peer review of 21 different studies and 66 analyses produced an outcome favoring acceptance of grants submitted by men over women by 7% (31). The combination of her studies and that of many others led Stockard to conclude that the peer-review system has reached a stage where the single blind review needs to be altered to overcome biases, and that double-blind review appears to offer a possible path forward. Many reforms, like elevators and ramps, that accommodate individuals with physical disabilities have resulted from the introduction of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Burgstahler introduced the importance of universal design thinking when accommodating individuals with a physical or mental disability more generally and effectively (32). Universal design is a process or practice which makes products or the environment welcoming to a broad audience. Burgstahler observed that “most of the models geared towards creating an accommodating environment has been driven by deficit model, where the person is made aware of what they cannot do rather than what they can do (45).” This, in turn, tends to severely stunt the person’s growth and creates an unfriendly environment. The legal model is motivated by the success of the ADA and tries to mandates that laws be in place to remove discrimination towards individuals with a disability, but it doesn’t often help a person when confronted by one-time discriminatory events. The social model is similarly correlated to the deficit 37 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

model. It makes the individual aware of the environment they came from thereby creating a stereotype threat and exacerbates the barrier. The Universal Design approach focuses on ways to overcome the barriers faced by individuals with disabilities to create an environment that fosters the growth of broad participation. Burgstahler suggested that chemistry departments should consider the renovation of classroom laboratories so that one of its stations would be accessible to wheelchair users, and the installation of accessible technology such as talking color detection, hands free stirrers etc. She also listed ways that instructors could take the initiative towards universal access by involving individuals with disabilities more and repeating questions, having a flexible curriculum, selecting materials early and providing regular feedback. One of her key findings is the need for changes to not be based in reaction to complaints, but instead should be proactively instituted so that appropriate accommodations can be made in ways that are fully inclusive of diverse needs. Suggested Interventions in Chemistry At an organizational level, participants were keen to learn ways for leveraging the office of the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) within their campuses. From the standpoint of institutional support, Ervin provided insight into the role a CDO plays in helping university and departments address and solve the need to diversity and inclusivity. The CDO is responsible for guiding efforts that provided pointed solutions and coordinates with the leadership to instill diversity institution-wide (46). The CDO provides a resource to collaborate with departments to develop an inclusive diversity portfolio that helps recruit diverse talent at the faculty and student levels. The institutional investment in a CDO provides the departmental chairs with a possible resource to leverage to help create a diverse and inclusive department. Participants noted that recruiting URM students is not independent of environment and retention. Thus, a department needs to demonstrate a supportive environment and the likely possibility of successful paths beyond and because of a PhD. Participants recommended to: (i) build close connections to local minority serving institutions, bring in faculty for sabbaticals and summers, and build trusted points of contact with their faculties, (ii) bring in students for research experiences so as to widen the applicant pool and lead to stronger applications, and (iii) partner with industry and government labs to offer scholarships that have intense experiences that allow students to see a closer better supportive group through grad school by employment. In order to inspire more students to pursue careers in chemistry, participants also argued that we need to expose truly talented students to real research as early as possible, preferably in the second year of college. Some of them proposed a solution to enlist more Hispanic students into summer research programs (REU-like programs) at major research universities. In order to improve URG graduate student recruitment, climate and retention, participants recognized that something needed to be done, but that programs needed to be careful not to create stereotype threats that would be counter-productive. Recommendations included the introduction of mentoring programs for all first-year students, exercising care in matching advisors to 38 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

students, and appealing for additional resources to increase targeted mentoring for URGS. Participants asked for increased sharing of effective practices between departments, and for evaluations of the effect of interventions in the academy similar to that which Dobbins had performed for industry. In order to motivate and promote URG graduate students to the professoriate, participant recommendations included: (i) ensure that students have a full understanding of academic career opportunities and what they need to do to succeed, (ii) create a culture that supports student success, and (iii) institute mentoring programs at all levels, with faculty mentoring graduate students, graduate students mentoring each other (that is, peer-to-peer), and graduate students mentoring undergraduates, In order to improve the recruitment of URM faculty, participants advocated for: (i) networking, early intervention, tracking students, and outreach to URM groups and organizations, (ii) networking with other universities through scientific exchanges of faculty and students, (iii) post-doctoral appointments targeted towards URM, (iv) recognizing regional strengths diversity in recruiting faculty, and (v) exploring the use of diversity rankings from the NRC survey to guide identification of universities that are the top producers of URM PhDs. In order to improve URG faculty climate and retention, participants recommended the following: (i) service duties should be assigned in a targeted way so as to mentor and promote faculty while not overburdening URG professors, (ii) teaching assignments should balance departmental needs for introducing students to your URG professors (as diversity begets diversity), and the needs of the faculty to have balanced loads, (iii) URG faculty cannot be in solo status if sustained diversity is to be achieved, and achieving it requires targeted recruitment and hiring of successful scientists before they leave the academic system, (iv) ensure that all faculty have an equitable voice in departmental actions and decisions, (v) be proactive in addressing personal challenges (such as the possible lack of childcare) to the success of your faculty, and (vi) consider the use of double-blind review in the tenure process. In order to motivate and promote URG faculty promotion and subsequent career success, participants recommended: (i) make mentoring a sacred obligation of the department; (ii) make the guidelines for mentoring subject to faculty approval and then put in writing for the juniors.; (iii) make the guidelines for promotion clear by helping to manage time lines appropriately, providing timely feedback, keeping overall tenure process transparent, and remind candidate that in the end, a set of letters must be obtained from external experts stating that the their accomplishments are appropriate to earn tenure; (iv) avoid at all costs, uneven mentoring, and good mentor should want to do the job for professional reasons considering it a collegial obligation, not a chore; (v) measures are needed to assist women, minorities and others to avoid post tenure fatigue; and (vi) ensure that candidates receive exposure with experts in the field by putting them in charge of being hosts of department invitations for colloquia or named lectures. The NDEW2011 breakout group and reporting sessions thus provided participants with the opportunity to address institutional issues broadly. All of the groups echoed the need for reviewing tenure-clock modification, creating mentoring opportunities for professors midway through their careers, actively 39 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

engaging faculties in providing professional development for graduate students and post-docs, openly discussing the review process for tenure-track faculties, and a need for including seminar topics with speakers discussing the biases and barriers faced by URGs and understand that diversity does not mean anti-excellence. Department chairs recognized the need to regularly update written policies concerning tenure and promotion procedures and guidelines for yearly faculty evaluations. In particular, they identified a pressing need for updating childcare policies and providing additional funding to help accommodate faculty members with growing families. The lack of data sets on the participation of individuals reporting as LGBTQIQ+ and individuals with disabilities was identified as a roadblock to developing targeted solutions to address barriers so as to reduce diversity inequities. There was an overall agreement among NDEW2011 participants that in order to obtain such data, it would be important for survey instruments to respect individual privacy, and not compromise and disclose any sensitive data that could potentially negatively affect them. Participants also agreed that they needed a better strategy for attracting diverse faculty candidates, and a structure within the university to promote retention of faculty through mentoring and professional development efforts. The overall impact of the workshop was rated as positive by participants. About 93% of the participants found the tasks and discussions from the breakout groups to be very useful. All the focus sessions were reported to be relevant to the focus of the workshops and appropriately targeted to the needs of the department heads, and especially the focus sessions on Contributing Factors and Demographics & Assessment. Participants also agreed that the focus sessions generally had a positive effect, and that they would all be willing to alter their approaches to solve the diversity equity parity. Of the participants who provided feedback via the survey, 69% of the participants showed keen interest in creating programs within their department to attain diversity equity. This was corroborated by the overall positive effect that the focus session on interventions had on the participants as reported by them.

VI. Discussion and Conclusion The first NDEW in 2011 was an ambitious effort on OXIDE’s part to discuss diversity and inclusion with respect to gender, URM, sexual orientation and disabilities, all in one workshop. This effort built on the work by several groups to advance each of these URGs through specialized workshops. The past work done by the community provided a template for NDEW to discuss biases and barriers faced by URGs generally, and to develop solutions for department chairs and leaders to improve the climate either by targeting individual cohorts or by making a collective solution that benefits all the URGs. The breakout sessions were used as a way to enhance the translation of the research-based findings from the social scientists to the context faced by chemistry department heads and chairs, and to allow for discussion of possible programs and policy changes that could be implemented to correct for diversity inequities. Overall, the workshop was received well by the participants. The structure of the focus sessions and 40 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

breakout groups offered an essential balance of information and discussion. Over 90% of the participants agreed that the presentations made by the social scientists provided a deeper scientific understanding of the biases and barriers. Participants also recognized the need to regularly update departmental policies and procedures so as to reduce diversity inequities as they are identified. In this chapter, we have summarized the unique and overlapping inequitable barriers faced by members of URGs. The biases and barriers were addressed both with respect to how they affect all URGs and how they may differ for members of different groups. Such barriers include including stereotype threat, schemas and solo status along with the better-known challenges associated with implicit bias. The workshop covered an in-depth analysis of the faculty demographics and modes of assessment that are used to quantify diversity at an organizational level. As a systemic barrier, one of the highlights of the workshop was the discovery of the low efficacy of diversity training and the little progress it has made on improving managerial diversity. The resulting discussion called for reforming diversity training programs and supplementing it with newer diversity tools and appropriate metrics for studying the efficacy of diversity interventions. Mentoring programs and support mechanisms for enhancing the professional networks of faculty were identified as potential solutions aimed at increasing the recruitment and retention of URG faculty. The breakout group discussions amongst the chairs included suggestions for policies permitting tenure clock stoppages or modified duties and for the reduction of overburdening and isolation of URG faculty. Developing universal design to accommodate people of broad abilities was posed as another need for the community. Participants overwhelmingly agreed to the need for frequently informing and clarifying of tenure and promotion procedures, and the need for childcare policies that supported female and male faculty. The workshop encouraged department chairs to generate policies and procedures for barriers that affect all URGs disproportionally instead of specific cohorts, and to develop metrics to measure the efficacy of the policies. Participants were encouraged that the demographic representation of faculty with respect to gender had seen a slight increase, suggesting that departments are making conscious decisions to improve the demographics of faculty. NDEW2011 convened social scientists and departmental leaders to continue the top-down approach to accelerate positive changes in departmental climate across all of the URG cohorts. To this end, they identified appropriate strategies and possible departmental interventions for advancing inclusivity and excellence. Several department chairs also affirmed the need for a focus session dedicated to LGBTQ+ inclusion as they identified this population for having been underserved.

Acknowledgments We thank Alicia Gardner-Aben, Virna Mendoza, Jean Stockard, and Timothy Swager for their contributions to the success of NDEW2011. 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, 41 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

and 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).

APPENDIX 1 Participant List (+ Denotes Dept. Representative & * Denotes Speaker): John Badding+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Physics, Pennsylvania St. Univ. Gary Blanchard+ Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Michigan State Univ. Karl Booksh, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Delaware Sheryl Burgstahler*, Prof., Founder Director DOZIT Center, University of Washington Cynthia J. Burrows+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Utah Robert S. Coleman+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Ohio State Univ. Luis A. Colon+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo Robert Continetti+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of California, San Diego Larry Dalton+, Prof, Chem. and Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Washington Frank Dobbin*, Prof., Dept. of Sociology, Harvard Univ. Michael P. Doyle+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of Maryland Luis Echegoyen+, Prof, Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Texas at El Paso Archie Ervin*, VP for Institute Diversity, Georgia Institute of Technology Franz M. Geiger+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Northwestern Univ. David Giedroc+, Prof. Dept. of Chemistry, Indiana Univ. Paula T. Hammond*, Prof., Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kenneth Henderson+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of Notre Rigoberto Hernandez*, OXIDE Dir. & Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Paul B. Hopkins+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Washington K. N. Houk*, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of California, Los Angeles Malika Jeffries-EL+, Associate Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Iowa State Univ. Eric Kaler*, Provost & Sr. VP for Academic Affairs Provost, Stony Brook Univ. Robert Lichter, Principal, Merrimack Consultants, LLC Craig T. Martin+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst Todd J. Martinez+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Stanford Univ. Andrew W. Maverick+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Louisiana State University Donna J. Nelson*, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Oklahoma 42 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Daniel M. Neumark+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of California, Berkeley Simon North+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Texas A&M Univ. Jeanne Pemberton+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Arizona William T. Petuskey+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University Matthew S. Platz, Director, Chemistry Division, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation Mark Ratner+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Northwestern Univ. Geraldine Richmond+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry Univ. of Oregon George B. Richter-Addo+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of Oklahoma Gregory Robinson+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Georgia Michael Rogers, Director, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Division, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health Eric Rohlfing, Director, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences, Department of Energy Charles Schmuttenmaer+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Yale Univ. Denise Sekaquaptewa*, Prof., Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Michigan Fred Smyth*, Prof. Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Virginia Erik Sorensen+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Princeton Univ. Jean Stockard*, Emeritus Prof., Dept. of Planning, Public Policy and Management, Univ. of Oregon Timothy Swager+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Daniel R. Talham+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Florida James M. Tanko+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Virginia Tech John Toscano+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University Nicholas J. Turro+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Columbia Univ. Virginia Valian*, Prof., Dept. of Psychology, CUNY Andrey Vilesov+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Southern California Lawrence Wagner*, President, LWSN Consulting Inc. David H. Waldeck+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Pittsburgh Linda Wang, Associate Editor, Chemical and Engineering News Isiah Warner*, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Louisiana State Univ. James Weisshaar+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Wisconsin James Wells+, Prof., Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Univ. California at San Francisco Angus P. Wilkinson+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Steven C. Zimmerman+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Illinois Hans-Conrad zur Loye+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Univ. of South Carolina


APPENDIX 2 Workshop Agenda of NDEW2011



References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshops: Advancing Diversity in Academia. In 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 1, pp 1−19. Hernandez, R.; Watt, S. A Top-Down Approach for Diversity and Inclusion in Chemistry Departments. In Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise; Cheng, H. N., Shah, S., Wu, M., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1169; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Chapter 19, pp 207−224. 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, 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, 2009. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/diversity/Documents/Chemists withDisabilitesRpt_web_sm.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) Long, J. R. Women Chemists Still Rare in Academia. Chem. Eng. News 2000, 78, 56. Long, J. R. Women Still Lag in Academic Ranks. Chem. Eng. News 2002, 80, 110–111. Marasco, C. A. Numbers of Women Nudge up Slightly. Chem. Eng. News 2003, 81, 58–59. Marasco, C. A. No Change in Numbers of Women Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2004, 82, 32–33. Marasco, C. A. Women Facutly Make Little Progress. Chem. Eng. News 2005, 83, 38–39. Marasco, C. A. Women Faculty Gain Little Ground. Chem. Eng. News 2006, 84, 58–59. Raber, L. R. Small Increase in Women Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2007, 85, 44–46. Raber, L. R. Women now 16% of Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2008, 86, 40–41. Raber, L. R. Women now 17% of Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88, 42–43. 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/ 46 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

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.) Summary Report 1996: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1998. Chapman, S. Challenges Women Scientists Face. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79, 61–32. Hernandez, R.; Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. The Gender and URM Faculty Demographics Data Collected by OXIDE. American Chemical Society, 2017; Vol. 1255, pp 101−112. Haas, A. P.; Eliason, M.; Mays, V. M.; Mathy, R. M.; Cochran, S. D.; D’Augelli, A. R.; Silverman, M. M.; Fisher, P. W.; Hughes, T.; Rosario, M.; Russell, S. T.; Malley, E.; Reed, J.; Litts, D. A.; Haller, E.; Sell, R. L.; Remafedi, G.; Bradford, J.; Beautrais, A. L.; Brown, G. K.; Diamond, G. M.; Friedman, M. S.; Garofalo, R.; Turner, M. S.; Hollibaugh, A.; Clayton, P. J. Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations. J. Homosex. 2010, 58, 10–51. Hernandez, R.; Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K. Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Vol. 1255, Chapter 4, pp 101−112. Morin, R. Study: Polls may underestimate anti-gay sentiment and size of gay, lesbian population; (published online: October 9, 2013) Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, 2013. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 2013/10/09/study-polls-may-underestimate-anti-gay-sentiment-and-size-ofgay-lesbian-population/ (accessed March 31, 2018.) Stockard, J.; Greene, J.; Lewis, P.; Richmond, G. Promoting gender equity in academic departments: A study of department heads in top-ranked chemistry departments. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 2008, 14, 1–27. Nosek, B. A.; Smyth, F. L.; Sriram, N.; Lindner, N. M.; Devos, T.; Ayala, A.; Bar-Anan, Y.; Bergh, R.; Cai, H.; Gonsalkorale, K.; Kesebir, S.; Maliszewski, N.; Neto, F.; Olli, E.; Park, J.; Schnabel, K.; Shiomura, K.; Tulbure, B. T.; Wiers, R. W.; Somogyi, M.; Akrami, N.; Ekehammar, B.; Vianello, M.; Banaji, M. R.; Greenwald, A. G. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106, 10593–10597. 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. Sekaquaptewa, D.; Thompson, M. Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 39, 68–74. Sekaquaptewa, D.; Waldman, A.; Thompson, M. Solo status and self-construal: being distinctive influences racial self-construal and 47 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

28. 29. 30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39. 40.

41.

42.

performance apprehension in African American women. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2007, 13, 321–327. Valian, V. Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1998. Dobbin, F.; Kalev, A.; Kelly, E. Diversity Management in Corporate America. Contexts 2007, 6, 21–28. Ross, J. S.; Gross, C. P.; Desai, M. M.; Hong, Y.; Grant, A. O.; Daniels, S. R.; Hachinski, V. C.; Gibbons, R. J.; Gardner, T. J.; Krumholz, H. M. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006, 295, 1675–1680. Budden, A. E.; Tregenza, T.; Aarssen, L. W.; Koricheva, J.; Leimu, R.; Lortie, C. J. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 2008, 23, 4–6. Iwarsson, S.; Stahl, A. Accessibility, usability and universal designpositioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 57–66. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD); DOI: 10.17226/12994; The National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2011. https://doi.org/10.17226/12994 (accessed March 30, 2018.) Alkilany, A.; Boulos, S.; Lohse, S.; Thompson, L.; Murphy, C. Homing Peptide-Conjugated Gold Nanorods: The Effect of Amino Acid Sequence Display on Nanorod Uptake and Cellular Proliferation. Bioconjugate Chem. 2014, 25, 1162–1171. Nosek, B. A.; Smyth, F. L.; Hansen, J. J.; Devos, T.; Lindner, N. M.; Ranganath, K. A.; Smith, C. T.; Olson, K. R.; Chugh, D.; Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 18, 36–88. Greenwald, A. G.; McGhee, D. E.; Schwartz, J. L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1464–1480. Kawakami, K.; Dovidio, J. F.; van Kamp, S. The Impact of Counterstereotypic Training and Related Correction Processes on the Application of Stereotypes. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 2007, 10, 139–156. Spence, J. T.; Hemreich, R. L. Masculinity and Feminity: The Psychological Dimensiions, Correlates and Antecedents; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, 1978. Gender, Masculinity and Men’s Health. In Gender Summit 2013; Washington DC, 2013. Heilman, M. E. The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1980, 26, 386–395. Heilman, M. E.; S., W. A.; Fuchs, D.; Tamkins, M. M. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psych. 2004, 89, 416–427. Fidas, D. Corporate Equality Index 2011: Rating American Workplaces on LGBT Equality; Human Rights Campaign: Washington, 48 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

43. 44. 45.

46.

DC, 2010; pp 1−100. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/ CorporateEqualityIndex_2011.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) Goldin, C.; Rouse, C. Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 715–741. Daniel, H. D. An Evaluation of the Peer Review Process at Angewandte Chemie. Angew. Chem. 1993, 105, 247–251. Buntinx, W. H. E.; Schalock, R. L. Models of Disability, Quality of Life, and Individualized Supports: Implications for Professional Practice in Intellectual Disability. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2010, 7, 283–294. Williams, D.; Wade-Golden, K. The chief diversity officer: A primer for college and university presidents. American Council on Education: Washington, DC, 2007.


National Diversity Equity Workshop 2011: Lowering Barriers for all

Recommend Documents