National Diversity Equity Workshop 2015: Intersectionality in

Downloaded via UNIV OF ARIZONA on July 22, 2018 at 08:27:01 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 4

National Diversity Equity Workshop 2015: Intersectionality in Chemistry Faculties Srikant K. Iyer,* Dontarie Stallings, and Rigoberto Hernandez* Department of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States *E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected].

The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) staged the third National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW) on April 12-14, 2015. The workshop featured a focus on inequitable barriers to success at the intersection—where individuals are members of more than one under-represented group—and women of color, in particular. It also featured a focus on how would-be faculty from underrepresented groups can be more equitably encouraged and recruited to join the faculties of research-active chemistry departments. We report on the methods and assessment of overall program elements. Findings from participants led to a refinement of the recommendations for chairs to advance diversity equity with a particular emphasis on improving climate and inclusion. This evidence-based disciplinary approach identified the importance of departmental climate in advancing and promoting inclusive excellence for students and faculty, and led to a critical recommendation for the need for climate assessment. This early finding is in concert with the increasing use of climate studies by many groups across academia.

I. Introduction The 2015 National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW2015) was the third in a biennial series of diversity workshops designed for chairs of leading research-intensive (RI) chemistry departments organized by the Open Chemistry © 2018 American Chemical Society Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Collaborative in Diversity Equity. As with other NDEWs, it employed the top-down hypothesis (described in Chapter 1) to engage Chairs with recent findings on diversity equity and possible solutions to advance it (1). NDEW2015 was held on April 13-14, 2015, in Arlington, VA. Chairs or delegated tenured professors represented over 40 chemistry departments. Though barriers to equity in all four broad areas of underrepresentation (binary gender, URM, gender identity and orientation, and disability) were discussed, a particular highlight was that of intersectionality and women of color, in particular. In addition, for the first time at an NDEW, the barriers and possible attractions to entry for would-be faculty —that is, graduate students and postdocs— was a focus area. These so-called future professors are part of the pipeline for the faculties and they are trained and impacted by chemistry departments. Among the key findings by workshop participants was the impact of climate on advancing inclusive excellence of both future and current faculty within a department. This finding led participants to call for improved (and longitudinal) departmental climate assessment. In this chapter, we summarize the work presented by speakers at NDEW2015. We also summarize the workshop elements and the survey responses from participants providing a view of the efficacy of NDEW2015 as a community-wide intervention. The state of diversity within the leading RI chemistry departments at the time of the workshop is reviewed so as to provide context for the compelling need to redress demographic imbalances. As the chairs have adopted programs and policies suggested by prior NDEWs, they were able to provide feedback on the list, leading to a revisions and additions of recommended actions for chairs to implement in their departments. We conclude with this list, providing a discussion of how the recommendations are rooted in social science and how they can be contextualized to retool the professional culture of chemistry.

II. Background Demographics of RI Chemistry in 2015 Since 2000, several groups at varying times have surveyed the demographics of the faculties of selected cohorts of RI chemistry departments (2–5). OXIDE started surveying departments during the 2009-10 academic-year. The numbers are reported on our website (oxide.jhu.edu) and in publications (6, 7). During NDEW2015, we reported the data on the current state of faculty demographics. While the levels of representation of URGs remain low—as discussed below—the presentation of these numbers was only a small part of the workshop because they alone do not provide a direction for changing the representation. They are provided here because they are a benchmark for the relative progress in advancing diversity in chemistry departments and the need for correcting the lack of commensurability with availability.

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

Table 1. OXIDE’s Gender Demographic Data of Faculty Representation at the NSF Top-50 Chemistry Programs Based on Spending by Chemistry Research Programs in Fiscal Year 2014 (12, 13)

In 2015, the number of female faculty at RI chemistry departments remained low compared to availability in the doctoral (39.4%) and postdoctoral (25%) pools (3, 7–10). Between 2009 and 2013, the percentage of female tenure-track faculty members at R1 chemistry departments remained nearly flat, inching up at approximately 0.5%/year (11). Compared to the overall population, female faculty are represented well below availability at 17.3% in the 2013-2014 academic year as listed in Table 1 (12, 13).

Table 2. OXIDE’s U.R.M Demographic Data of Faculty Representation at the NSF Top-50 Chemistry Programs (Based on Spending by Chemistry Research Programs in Fiscal Year 2014) versus Representation within the United States Population (3, 7, 13, 14)

In 2015, URMs represented 31.8% of the population (14), yet they made up 4.7% of tenure-track chemistry faculty members at PhD granting institutes (5, 11). As a field we were then utilizing only 14.8% of URM availability (Table 2). The challenge though is not just limited to precollege barriers because 12.3% of college chemistry graduates are URMs (9). This suggests that the availability gap is sufficiently large within the sectors that are exposed to chemistry faculties that said faculties could substantially impact the level of inclusion of URM chemists in our workforce. 81 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Data was also collected by OXIDE pertaining to the representation of individuals who are simultaneously in multiple URGs, that is, at the intersection. The representation of women of color at the faculty level was less than 1% over a recent three-year period, i.e. for AY 2011-12 (0.69%), AY 2012-13 (0.81%) and AY2013-14 (0.81%). Indeed, in absolute terms, the number of URM women in this cohort of departments is less than 16, which makes it difficult to address it in statistical terms. On the one hand, this clearly signals a break in the system—due to inequitable barriers and policies— that has to be repaired in order to increase their representation to match availability. On the other hand, it also means that the support and retention of a small number of talented URM female chemists within the academic pipeline would be enough to double their representation. The representation by chemists with disabilities (CWD) and LGBTQIQA+ chemists in RI chemistry departments has been historically difficult to measure. There is significant under-reporting for a number of reasons (7, 15, 16). As a consequence, the chemistry community has yet to produce data that accurately reflects the number of individuals within the CWD and the LGBTQIQA+ cohorts (17). As such, no data about these groups was provided directly to the NDEW2015. However, it was pointed out that the fact that the data is difficult to obtain is a significant part of the problem in creating an inclusive environment.

III. Methods NDEW2015 had 75 participants, 41 of which were department chairs and chair representatives. They are listed in Appendix 2. The components of the workshop included four Focus Sessions, keynote speakers, breakout group sessions and report-outs, and remarks by funding agency representatives. A new feature introduced at NDEW2015 was the announcement of the Diversity Catalyst Lecturer, and their invited lecture presented near the end of the last day of the workshop. The four Focus Sessions provided perspectives on thematic issues faced by URGs and possible solutions aimed at reducing inequities in academia during hiring, retention and promotion at the graduate, post-doctoral and faculty levels. Each focus session had three speakers and was capped by panel discussion aimed at translating their findings to the context of the chemistry discipline. Keynote speakers talked about personal and professional experiences related to diversity equity for careers in chemistry. Agency representatives provided a snapshot of current funding trends and the vision and directions for promoting a diverse chemical workforce through their research investments. The goal of every NDEW is to increase awareness of biases and barriers and implementable solutions that can be applied by chairs from various Chemistry departments. Breakout group discussions were critical to the success of NDEW2015 as they provided participants a mechanism for addressing current challenges to diversity equity in their departments, possible solutions for overcoming them, and assessment mechanisms to gauge efficacy. Six breakout groups were created with at least 10 participants in each group. The 82 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

purpose of this exercise was for each group to discuss issues faced by various underrepresented demographics in academia. Resulting from the discussions, the groups proposed policies that Chemistry departments could adopt to take appropriate action towards the identified inequities. The groups were encouraged to propose a program that offered a structured approach towards the implementation of policies, and the development of mechanisms to assess their efficacy. The Breakout Sessions thus resulted in a work product that fed into the recommendations for chairs described later in this chapter. At NDEW2015, we also introduced the Diversity Catalyst Lecturer (DCL). It is awarded to the chair of a department in recognition of the various policies and programs implemented in their department so as to improve and increase diversity excellence. In speaking at NDEW, the DCL is able to model how they lead their department in advancing diversity equity, by way of implementing the recommendations that they learned at previous NDEWs.

Focus Sessions A brief summary of the sessions and speakers at the Focus Session is as follows:

Focus Session 1 (Bias, Barriers, and Inequalities) This session discussed the inequalities and inequities that arise due to biases and barriers faced by URG in academia. Each speaker in this session introduced the existence of inequalities in various situations. Casadevall has published quantitative data in peer-reviewed journals eliciting the biases faced by women at scientific conferences (18, 19). Graves described the existence of biases in academia and its presence in STEM fields (20). Dobbin summarized the outcomes of his research on diversity inequality in corporate organizations, which identifies the interventions that have worked and the ones that have not worked in improving representation in industry (21, 22).

Focus Session 2 (Intersectionality: Women of Color) The session focused on issues faced by women of color, and the speakers introduced qualitative data to substantiate such issues. Ong reported on her research focusing on gender and race in science for over twenty years (23, 24). Jeffries-EL, a tenured chemistry faculty member, provided first-hand accounts of the issues faced by women of color in academia. Prince summarized the business case for diversity and provided data from her recent study about how a company’s diversity is correlated with their financial success (25).


Focus Session 3 (Future Faculty) This session was structured to complement the first two focus sessions as it dealt with issues faced by post-doctoral and graduate students —that is, future faculty— as they work towards their degrees and possible employment as professors. Laursen summarized her findings about the issues faced by graduate students and post-doctoral fellows and their interest towards continuing in academia (8). Grunert described the decision-making and motivation of URG STEM future faculty and correlates it to cultural and institutional mechanisms that can as barriers (26). McGee focused on developing and implementing models and methods for the professional development of young scientists and individuals from URGs (27).

Focus Session 4 (Implementation and Solutions) The first three sessions focused on addressing issues faced at various levels in the academic ladder, the final session focused on possible solutions that can be implemented in order to overcome biases and barriers faced by URGs. Rowland is a proponent of universal design as way to remove barriers to success for individuals with various disabilities. Cech discussed many barriers hampering the success of women, LGBT individuals and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields in higher education and workforce (28, 29). Ebersol described the way in which implicit bias affects behavior that can lead to underemployment or lack of support for URG chemists.

Breakout Groups Prior to the workshop, chairs and chair representative self-identified which area of underrepresentation they wished to focus on during the breakouts in the workshop. OXIDE used their preferences to create six groups with a balanced number of members in each. Participants were sorted into these groups by preference and type of participant (chairs, senior department representatives, board members, focus speakers, and additional participants). Breakout groups were constructed along the vectors of female faculty (Helium Group), Under-represented minority faculty (Krypton Group), Under-represented minority trainees (Neon Group), female trainees (Xenon Group), intersectioned faculty and trainees (Argon Group), and chemists with disabilities and or from LGBTQIQA+ groups (Radon Group) so as have targeted discussion about barriers and solutions that could potentially be unique to particular URGs pre- and post- faculty hiring. Group tasks were broken up into three Breakout Sessions and two reporting sessions. Each breakout group was charged to: (i) identify diversity inequities affecting their eponymous URG, (ii) suggest policy changes to reduce these diversity inequities, (iii) suggest new programs to reduce these diversity inequities, and 84 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

(iv) determine assessment mechanisms to determine the efficacy of B & C. In more detail, the requested work products were broken out as follows:

Breakout Session A Each group elected a department chair or chair representative as a Breakout Group leader who moderated the group activity, and another as a Breakout Group reporter who summarized and presented the policies and programs identified by each group at the end of the allotted sessions.

Breakout Session B Each group discussed and prioritized 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 The groups discussed a structured approach to implement the policy and the impact the implemented program would have for each group.

Breakout Reporting Following sessions B and C, each group Reporter summarized the main findings from the Breakout Sessions with appropriate solutions to help improve diversity and reduce barriers and biases for each group. This allowed ideas to flow between the breakout groups.

Diversity Catalyst Lecture Starting with NDEW2015, the OXIDE Research Group honors (yearly) a deserving chair with the ’Diversity Catalyst Lecture’ (DCL) award. The DCL is awarded to the chair that has most effectively introduced policies and procedures to address diversity excellence within their respective department. During NDEW2015, David Giedroc of Indiana University, was honored with the 2015 DCL award. Giedroc’s efforts included: ensuring increased diversity within applicant pools, making proactive adjustments to the FMLA-Qualifying parameters, aggressive recruitment of dual career chemist, aggressive retention of chemist from URGs, and structural changes in the department to enhance diversity. Many of these ideas were learned and suggested by the chairs at the previous NDEWs. As such, Giedroc’s DCL served as an example to the chairs of what they could do upon their return to their departments. 85 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

IV. Overview of Barriers and Solutions NDEWs focus on biases and barriers faced individually —that is, when they occur from an interaction between people— and systemically —that is, when they occur as a result of a department- or university- wide policies or actions. NDEW2015 focused on the development of mechanisms that flatten diversity inequities and recognize diversity excellence systemically while also acknowledging the importance of transactional exchanges that may be needed to correct individual experiences.

Figure 1. OXIDE’s Academic Ladder was generated as an alternative to the pipeline metaphor so as to emphasize that pathways that lead to other career tracks are not losses while emphasizing that the career pathways leading to faculty jobs can include direct or indirect entry into the professoriate after degree achievements. A counterpoint to the notion that inequitable barriers are the cause for a lack of commensurate representation by URG chemists is the notion that the leaky pipeline of career progression leads to too few URG scientists in the available pool for faculty. Such an argument invariably places the blame on K-12 which college and university faculty have only a limited ability to affect (27, 30–32). However, the demographics along this pipeline reported above prove that there is more than enough URG scientists available to populate the faculties with higher URG representation if it were not for inequitable barriers that they encounter within higher education. In lieu of the professional pipeline, at NDEW2015, we suggested the academic ladder shown in Figure 1 as a better model for the stages that need to be addressed. The ladder allows one to better discuss the centralized role faculty play in the culture, climate, and demographics of the entire chemistry career pathway from BS chemists to the professoriate. Faculty members teach and train our B.S. students. Faculty members train postdoctoral 86 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

and Ph.D. students. Faculty members recruit and hire other faculty members. Faculty members become Administrators. Faculty members are thus critical to the academic ladder traversed by any future professor. As such, faculty members have the capacity to truly effect change within the chemistry field by way of removing inequitable barriers.

Barriers to Individual Success Individuals from under-represented groups (URGs) face biases at every stage of their personal and professional development. These biases are distinct and are often only experienced by URGs. As a result, these additional barriers have deleterious effects on the hiring, retention and promotion of URG faculty. Examples of such biases have been discussed in the section on Biases and Barriers in Chapter 1 of this book (1). Graves’ work highlighted these systemic barriers as she demonstrated that the number of students interested in STEM based fields are substantially reduced during the transition from high school to college (20). Further exacerbating the problem, Graves’ data indicated that systemic biases within the University system continues to reduce the numbers of STEM interested URG students. In Graves’ study, she used actors to teach a physics course. The actors did not have any physics knowledge and read from a script. Half of the actors were male, and the other half were female. Students were asked to rate the capability of their professor’s knowledge. Both female and male students rated the male actors as more knowledgeable and noted their superior teaching capabilities. The negative perception of a female’s ability to understand and teach physics represents a bias that discourages women from pursuing an academic career in physics. These perceptions are unfortunately universal within the STEM field as several studies have shown that subtle gender biases and stereotype propagate throughout the academic ladder (33, 34)., Biases often result in stereotypes that are used to define individuals according to the groups to which they are assigned. As a result, URG members are often expected to fit to the stereotypes (or norms) defined by the majority. Jefferies-EL suggests that barriers at the intersection —which encompasses individuals belonging to more than one underrepresented group— are exacerbated by the fit construct. She described a double blind study that discussed obstacles faced by women of color at the intersection of race and gender (35, 36). Minority female scientists are often burdened, and consequently feel excruciating pressure from expectations not felt by others (37–42). Prince remarked that, “the elements of diversity cannot just be looked from either the lens of gender or the lens of ethnicity. But the issue at the point of intersection is additive and needs to be accounted for both (25).” Ong discussed policies and practices that promote the success of women of color. These policies and practices have a universal effect because their implementation has been shown to improve the success of all students pursuing STEM based degrees (24). According to Ong, “Women of color face two major issues isolation and microaggressions.” Isolation comes in the form of hypervisibility, invisibility, and a sense that what one sees is a lack of others 87 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

like them (43). Microaggressions are subtle insults, verbal, nonverbal, or visual, directed towards URGs, often unconsciously (44). Microaggressions have profoundly contributed to a strong sense of dissatisfaction within STEM, as well as attrition of women of color from STEM (45). To stem this effect, counter-spaces have proven to be safe havens that allow underrepresented individuals to foster learning, wherein their experiences are validated and viewed as important and allows others to share similar experiences of isolation and microaggression (46). Moreover, counter-spaces allow underrepresented individuals to discuss how they have overcome said barriers.

Barriers at the Organizational Level Recruitment, retention, and promotion of individuals within an organization can be positively or negatively affected by an organization’s management style. If we look at this from a binary view, the system can either nurture or inhibit the professional advancement of its employees. Within the academic chemistry field, the standard organizational management style has systemically placed professional advancement barriers in front of individuals from URGs. Professional cultures play a key role in developing a climate that is conducive for individuals to interact with their colleagues (28). According to Cech, inequalities get introduced through ideologies of schemas of scientific excellence, depoliticization, and meritocracy in STEM (47). There is a notion of technical/social dualism, whereby technical knowledge is more valued (economically) over social knowledge within the academic chemistry field (28). Cech described the stereotypic gender based distinction, where men are viewed better at technical-related tasks, and women are viewed as being better at social-related tasks. As a result, the biased schema places women as inferior chemists because the field does not value social-related skills. This false correlation plays a significant role in the disparity in wages between men and women (28, 29). Cech mentions that “in schemas of scientific excellence, competence and excellence needs to be redefined.” The professional culture of a department affects the entire academic ladder. In comparison to industry’s perceived professional culture, academia’s professional culture is lacking as evidenced by the fact that URG scientists are preferentially opting for careers within industry. While it is difficult to change the perceptions of URG scientists that have already chosen industry, actively changing the professional culture within current chemistry departments can play a significant role in the choices by future faculty. Laursen’s work suggests that a critical mass of candidates at graduate and post-doctoral level needs to be groomed to create a diverse pool of applicants that fosters academic excellence, to improve the “leaky pipeline (31, 48, 49).” Moreover, she found that there was no correlation between the percentage of women who complete their Ph.D. and the percentage of women that join as faculty members (31, 48, 49). She added “very few departments have a critical mass of women faculty, hence the range was not enough to detect any statistical relationship.” With respect to URMs, Laursen noted that “a more diverse faculty was associated with a more diverse student body of graduates.” 88 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Upon a closer view into the data she noted a huge variation between various departments. Those that observed an increase in URG participants were deliberate about preparing a diversity plan (8). Such schools emphasized the importance of having counter-spaces in order that URG participants could feel comfortable communicating and developing informal networks. The department climate also played a major role. Institutions that had NSF ADVANCE efforts on campus to promote equity resulted in faculty with positive views. This was observed by graduate students and led them to roles promoting their departments. This increased the scope of mentoring and helped in the subsequent development of broad participation. This, in turn, provided a way to improve recruitment and retention of a broader faculty. Conferences are an opportunity for professionals to get recognition amongst their peers through presentations of their scientific work, and to build a professional community or network. Casadevall became interested in the inequitable representation of women at annual professional meetings. He focused on the gender representation at the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) and International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) from 2011 to 2013. As a first study, he compared the representation of female speakers in sessions led by all-male conveners versus sessions that had at least one female convener (18, 19). To his surprise, sessions with at least one female convener had a 40% representation of women compared to the 20-25% representation of women speakers in sessions with all male conveners.

Solutions Offered by Social Scientists Plaut noted that depoliticization has been a long standing solution to address diversity equity in academia founded on “the belief that STEM is a pure space that should be stripped off political and cultural concerns.” However, the direction of research is necessarily governed by the cultural and political concerns as they stand at a given time. The presumption of depoliticization leads to “shutting down of conversation about diversity and inequality within professional spaces.” Cech and coworkers found that when individuals claim that they are blind to someone’s color, they are dismissing the culture and the background of the individual and showing additional insensitivity to the conversation (50). Thus neither depoliticization nor colorblindness are effective solutions to removing diversity barriers or inequities. Over the past twenty years, industry hiring of URG chemists have outpaced academic hiring. Industry has adopted social science professional climate practices at a faster clip. In order to effectively compete with industry, it is imperative for the chemistry academic field to adopt industrial practices for creating a more competitive professional climate. As a function of the workshop the following items were noted: (i) It is important to have authentic conversations with faculty. (ii) Top-down non-voluntary diversity training exercises tend to be ineffective. In order to teach or train your faculty members about professional diversity and inclusion, workshops need to have non-mandatory attendance. (iii) Mentoring is effective and should be implemented throughout the entire academic 89 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

ladder. Mentoring should be intentional and organized. Mentoring should include peer-to-peer, senior mentors, etc. (iv) Affinity groups tend to be effective only if they have longitudinal participation—that is, if they have representation from senior colleagues or leaders. Dobbin introduced the importance of managerial diversity and showed that concepts like diversity training and affinity groups can lead to increased awareness. Alarmingly, he noted that the focus on controlling managers biases through training have not contributed significantly to the progress in the diversity of staff within corporations (21). He reasoned, “cognitive dissonance theory suggests that if you can get people to work towards some goal, their attitudes will change. Their biases will be reduced, if you can get them, somehow, to promote diversity without forcing them.” He goes on to add that affinity groups have offered mentoring programs that have assisted in empowering various URGs. McGee focuses on the general effects of coaching and mentoring (51, 52). Mentoring plays a key role in helping individuals understand the expectations and ways to overcome biases and barriers commonly experienced by a given demographic group at the professional level (43, 52–54). Dobbin and Casadevall both emphasized the idea of accountability for creating awareness of the existence of biases towards URGs. To do so, diversity training programs need to evolve to effectively make audiences cognizant of the presence of inequalities. Casadevall showed that his intervention, introducing women conveners in American Society of Microbiology, led to more female applicants for those sessions, and thereby led to flattening the issue of solo status which had arisen when male conveners dominated conference proceedings (18). He noted that by presenting the demographic imbalances to the conveners early on, he was able to increase their awareness about poor representation of women speakers and this led them to be more deliberate in identifying the best speakers among a broader and more diverse pool. In summary, the conveners had not been aware of their implicit biases in the selection process, and in this case, an effective solution was the articulation of the previous inequitable outcomes. Prince presented the business case for diversity by showing that increasing inclusiveness of URGs leads to a larger talent pool from which to choose from, thereby giving businesses access to the best brains for tackling business problems (55, 56). Indeed, she found a direct correlation between higher levels of business performance and increased levels of diversity within their employees (55, 56). She added “depending on where we are in the evolutionary scheme of increasing diversity, in the U.S., you won’t see a statistically significant relationship between increased levels of gender and the exact team performance until you hit a 22% tipping point.” Prince mentioned that in order to drive transformation, she encourages her clients “to design a program that is going to drive people to act on their accord and engage in the conversation rather than commanding instructions and assess the company profitability as well as the individual’s satisfaction” Another key solution relies on the idea of moving towards universal design in the work environment so as to enable an inclusive culture (57, 58). Advancement in technology has helped in improving the access of a greater number of individuals to work environments. In particular, individuals with disabilities have benefited tremendously from technological development and have been 90 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

able to function within the norms of society. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disabilities. This has helped empower individuals with disabilities and hence improved inclusiveness amongst all populations. As pointed out by Rowland, the Internet has provided more support. However it’s only recently that companies and departments have adopted the universal design model to make it accessible for all individuals. WAVE, a website accessibility tool offers information about how to make websites developed by institutes accessible.

V. Results and Discussion OXIDE developed surveys to assess the efficacy of the workshop and its impact on the participants. Surveys were sent to the participants prior to the workshop (pre-survey) and after the workshop (post-survey). The participants showed clear buy-in, into the diversity and inclusivity ideas that came out from the workshop. The data obtained from the assessment of the survey shows that after the workshop the departmental chairs strategized to implement policies that considered the needs of all the diversity groups as well as the needs of the individual cohorts. Evaluation of the Workshop To quantify the efficacy of NDEW 2015, we conducted pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys. There was a small drop from 24 participants who completed the pre-survey to 23 who completed the post survey. They were asked to respond to their level of agreement to the statement, “I am likely to agree with or endorse the creation of programs and/or policies aimed at increasing diversity equity in my department” on a scale from strongly disagree (with value equal to -2) to strongly agree (with value equal to +2). The weighted average moved from 1.2 to 0.9 on this scale, but that can be attributed almost entirely by the increase of 3 to 5 outliers who reported as strongly disagree pre to post. While this shows that there was not a significant change in the overall intentions of the participants to engage in solutions to advance diversity equity, it does point to the existence of some level of recalcitrance. This led OXIDE to institute small changes in the workshop narrative and the tasks that were performed in NDEW 2017 in order to capture such concerns and address them during the workshop. Such changes appear to have been successful as no participants responded to disagreeing with that statement post NDEW 2017 (59). The overall response from the participants, as summarized in Figure 2, indicated an increase in the number of actions —that is programs or policy changes intended to improve inclusive excellence— that would be employed in their departments after participation in NDEW2015. Figure 3 presents a comparative fingerprint of the types of actions that departments were making before and after the workshop. Perhaps the most significant positive indication of the workshop’s effectiveness is the increase in the total number of anticipated 91 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

actions as time from the workshop had elapsed. The data in Figure 3 also shows that survey respondents recognized an increased need for developing procedures that benefit all the four URGs (purple block). This is particularly visible in the reported increases in non-specific-target group actions for vertical mentoring, work life-balance (almost 2 times more), and the creation of a department diversity committee (almost 2 times more). There was also an overall increase in the need to address inclusivity with respect to individuals with disabilities (green) and sexual orientation (white). Both of these groups saw a substantial uptick in actions that centered on increasing inclusive language and inclusive infrastructure that is representative of the inclusive climate of the departments. The increase for both these actions was 2-3 fold for individuals with disabilities and greater than 5-fold for sexual identity and orientation. Such increases for all URGs and individual URGs indicated that department chairs were seeking to create an inclusive working climate, and to improve recruitment and retention of URGs. A similar trend was seen for actions to hold a department faculty meeting that discussed diversity, and the creation of a diversity committee that included individuals from all groups. Respondents increasingly recognized the need to hold an implement open searches in order to increase the diversity of their hiring pipelines.

Figure 2. Departments overall engagement in diversity equity. Data based on Pre- and post-workshop surveys. 92 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Figure 3. Pre- & post- workshop survey: List of possible actions related to diversity equity that participants reported that their department may consider within the next 12 months w.r.t. target underrepresented group(s): (red), race & ethnicity (blue), sexual orientation (white), individuals with disabilities (green) and non-specific (purple), from top to bottom in each bar. In absence of color, shading and sequencing can be used to reveal which is which.

Findings from NDEW2015 As a result of the focus sessions, and particularly the emphasis on intersectionality, participants found new ideas and refinements of the checklist of recommendations constructed by the NDEW 2013 (60). Moreover, participants showed keen interest in expanding their target diversity groups and in developing amore holistic strategy to improve departmental climate and to increase diversity and inclusivity. Workshop participants identified the key elements necessary (or at least useful) for developing a strategy to reduce diversity inequities for faculty across diverse groups. The revised recommendations to the chairs shown in Figure 4 were a result of the outcomes from the solutions proposed by the social scientists and by the chairs from the Breakout Sessions. It provides a template 93 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

for all chemistry departments to develop a diversity and inclusion portfolio of activities that addresses the hiring, retention and promotion of faculty so as to reduce inequities faced by various URG groups. The recommendations have been distributed widely through the OXIDE website, e-mails to chairs, and as a summary in a Comment in Chemical & Engineering News (6, 61).

Figure 4. NDEW2015’s Recommendation for Chairs. This list is a summary of policies and procedures collectively produced by chair during breakout groups held at NDEW 2015. Reproduced with permission from Ref. (61). Copyright 2015.

Department climate can be assessed from the perspective of how an organization is managed and is affected by organizational behavior. A diversity committee that includes URGs and majority faculty can carry out this assessment through randomized surveys or open discussions with department members broadly. If the committee is sufficiently representative of the constituent groups in the department, they can act as a focus group reporting the state of departmental climate. Its members should be voluntarily appointed, have broad representations, and URGs should not be over-burdened by way obliging their participation. One of the roles of the committee is the development and maintenance of a Diversity Statement and Vision for the department. It should be published on the departmental website or other freely accessible locations so as to show direct endorsement of diversity and inclusivity, and provide a vision for how the department strives to create an inclusive environment. 94 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Open searches that access candidates from broad areas needs to be introduced in order to broaden the applicant pool (62). Its successful application requires the search committees to enhance their processes so as to broaden the diversity of the candidates at each selection stage, starting from the initial applicant pool to the final small set of candidates interviewed on campus. For example, using academic pedigrees as a metric to reduce the size of the pool typically disfavors members from underrepresented groups. In order to avoid losing talented URG scientists from the pool, pedigrees should be contextualized and individuals should be judged by what they accomplished at the institutions in which they were trained. Transparency and communication should also be included as part of the diversity vision and strategy of the department In order to generate a trusting atmosphere among peers, for example, there needs to be clear and understandable set of metrics for recruitment, retention, promotion and progression within the department.. OXIDE’s website contains tools for department chairs and industrial scientists to learn more about diversity equity barriers and solutions. These tools include an OXIDE generated Department Presentation for Chairs intended for discussion during a faculty meeting, and additional diversity resources. (The website is also a hub for OXIDE’s social media efforts.) The social and professional climate within departments plays a significant role in the recruitment, retention and promotion of URG faculty. Strategic retention procedures can be placed for new faculty members by focusing on identifying key procedures that include: (i) mentoring (peer-to peer, professionally senior mentors, and mentors from outside of the department) and availability of faculty members; (ii) being mindful to not overburden URG faculty members with URG-specific service and have a reward system to support the efforts for URG-specific service; (iii) quantifying the value of the individual to the collective and rewarding her or him for it; (iv) providing additional administrative staff support correlating to administrative responsibilities or overburdening; (v) ensuring that evaluations are based on quantitative statements not “feelings” or schemas; and (vi) providing resources relevant to hiring and promotion, to temper the overburdening of URG faculty. One can view diversity and inclusion within the prism of an economic model. Businesses have recognized that there is a financial business case for diversity (56). This has caused an adjustment in the hiring practices and procedures of STEM based businesses towards increased recruitment and retention of URG talent. In a globally competitive market, it is important for academic chemistry departments to recognize that industry competes to recruit these excellent scientists, and they typically do so from the pool of graduating doctoral students. As a consequence, these would-be URG future faculty are less likely to undertake a postdoctoral position or stay in one long enough to be identified by standard faculty hiring practices. Thus, as chemistry departments increasingly appreciate the academic case for diversity, they need to identify new practices to compete for the best URG future faculty It is also useful to recognize that there is a need to generate a climate that is both supportive and comfortable. Such goals can be supported through the use of counter spaces. Counter spaces represent deliberate environments in which URG individuals and others are able to hold discussions whose topics 95 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

range from social to professional (46, 63). The introduction of counter spaces into departments would help to generate a platform for URG members to better communicate concerns and thereby facilitate better informed policy making by departmental leadership (46). Professional cultures need to be examined with respect to: social Inequalities, gender, sexuality, cultural sociology, work, and occupations. Impacting each of these variables and their intersections requires assessable procedures and policies to generate longer-term outcomes. To achieve this, departments need to expand the discussion of diversity barriers beyond implicit bias. While implicit bias is a significant barrier, it represents only one of the many barriers faced by the URG communities. Examples of the barriers faced by the URGs beyond implicit bias include: schemas, accumulation of bias, lack of universal design, insufficient mentoring, insufficient/unequal family-friendly policies, overburdening the few, unwelcoming climate, unwelcoming professional culture, misuse of qualitative vs. quantitative assessment, solo status, stereotype threat, minimizing differences/colorblindness, politicization and Meritocratic Ideology (62). An elaboration of some of these topics can be found in Section IV and in Chapter 1 of this book (1). It is rare that chemistry departments become demographically diverse by accident or through unmitigated evolution. Indeed, departments must be intentional in order to improve their demographics. At NDEW2015, invited social scientists not only provided discussion about barriers to diversity equity, but they also provided solutions to reduce them. An equally important contribution came from the discussion by chemists with social scientists and each other to contextualize those barriers and solutions within our existing professional culture. This forms the core of our evidence-based disciplinary-targeted solutions reported above.

VI. Conclusion In this chapter, we have summarized the process by which participants of the third biennial National Diversity Equity Workshop in 2015 interpreted some of the known inequitable barriers faced by members of URGs and implementable solutions to reduce those barriers, all in the context of research-active chemistry departments. The participants were primarily chairs or their representatives selected according to our top-down hypothesis because they are at the nexus for implementing transformative departmental changes to improve climate and help drive departments towards inclusive excellence. Many of the biases and barriers discussed at NDEW2015 affect members from many or all URGs. There are however some barriers that adversely affect only one group or a subgroup. To this end, NDEW2015 featured a focus on those barriers related to gender issues at the intersectionality with race and ethnicity. Although, NDEWs have often focused on faculty, a session targeted on inequitable barriers to the retention and promotion of so-called future faculty —i.e., graduate students and post-docs— into the professoriate proved to be useful in creating new solutions (that is, effective practices) for broadening 96 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

representation. The ongoing data collection of faculty demographics has helped the community assess its rate of change, and its relative success in recruiting URG future faculty away from industry and other equally successful career pathways. The demographics of faculty with respect to gender, particularly in the junior ranks, showed a slight increase. Mentoring and counter spaces were identified as potential solutions to help increase authentic conversations to advance inclusive departmental climate. A combination of horizontal —through affinity groups or peer-to-peer interactions— and vertical mentoring —through engagement with senior members— was addressed as a way to increase professional networking for individuals from URGs and hence increase visibility. The breakout group discussions amongst the chairs resulted in a revision of the recommendations for chairs whose on-line and printed publication act as a template for department chairs to address diversity and inclusion. This is an important work product that addresses the needs of all URG groups while developing procedures and policies that are useful for chairs. The fact that this is an outcome of the NDEW also proves that NDEWs are not diversity training, per se, but rather a workshop of chairs to empower each other to advance diversity equity with the discipline. OXIDE introduced the first Diversity Catalyst Lecturer to recognize the efforts and policies implemented by a chair to improve the climate of the department. The importance of departmental climate as either a facilitator or barrier to advancing diversity equity emerged as an important theme at NDEW2015. To better understand current climate, several departmental chairs identified the need for departmental climate surveys so as to get an understanding of their department’s concerns and aspirations, and to establish a baseline for assessing the impact of targeted changes for inclusivity and excellence. Such a community-wide recognition, and public statement in support of it, would not have occurred as readily had it not been for a gathering such as NDEW. This finding further supports the importance of employing the top-down hypothesis to advance diversity equity in research intensive chemistry departments specifically, and perhaps more broadly throughout academia.

Acknowledgments We thank Kimberly Schurmeier, Dwight McGee, Zach Dromsky, and Aeryal Herrod who contributed to the logistics for the workshop. This work and the OXIDE program have been jointly supported by the NIH, DOE and NSF through NSF grant #CHE-1048939. Cognizant units are the Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Division at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and 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 State Univ. Chris Bannochie, Fellow Scientist, Savannah River National Laboratory Michael Barber, Liaison Program Manager, Central Intelligence Agency Karl Booksh, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Delaware Stephen E. Bradforth+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Southern California Sheila E. Browne+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Mount Holyoke College Kay Brummond+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Pittsburg Phil Buhlmann+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Minnesota Arturo Casadevall*, Prof., Mol. Micro. & Immunology, Johns Hopkins Univ. Erin Cech*Associate Prof., Dept. of Sociology, Rice Univ. Mary Cloninger+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Montana State Univ., Bozeman David Cliffel+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Vanderbilt Univ. Steve Corcelli+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Notre Dame Larry Dalton, Prof., Chemical and Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Washington Jason DeRouchey+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Kentucky Frank Dobbin*, Prof., Dept. of Sociology, Harvard Univ. Zach Dromsky, OXIDE Information Analyst, Georgia Institute of Technology Charles R. Ebersole*, Graduate Student, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Virginia Luis Echegoyen+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Texas at El Paso Archie Ervin, Vice President, Institute of Diversity, Georgia Institute of Technology M.G. Finn+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Wilson A. Francisco+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Arizona State Univ. Michelle M. Francl+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Bryn Mawr Miguel Garcia-Garibay+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Univ. California, Los Angeles David P. Giedroc+*, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Indiana Univ. Bloomington Gregory Girolami+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. Illinois UrbanaChampagne Ted Goodson+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Michigan Amy L. Graves*, Prof., Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Swarthmore College Megan Grunert*, Assistant Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Western Michigan Univ. Ron Halterman+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Oklahoma Paula T. Hammond, Prof., Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 98 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Rigoberto Hernandez*, OXIDE Director & Prof., Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Srikant Iyer, OXIDE Assistant Research & Program Manager, Georgia Institute of Technology Madeline Jacobs, Executive Director & Chief Executive Officer of the ACS Malika Jeffries-EL+*, Associate Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Iowa State Univ. Brittny Johnson, Member Associate, American Chemical Society Kenneth D. Karlin+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins Univ. Susan Kauzlarich+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of California, Davis Judy Kim+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of California, San Diego Kei Koizumi*, Assistant Director of Federal Research & Development, White House Rebecca Y Lai+, Associate Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of NebraskaLincoln Brian B. Laird+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Kansas Sandra Laursen+*, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Boulder Colorado Jon R. Lorsch*, Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health Robert E. Maleczka+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Michigan State Univ. Craig T. Martin+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst Luigi Marzilli+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Louisiana State Univ. T. Dwight McGee, OXIDE Information Analyst, Georgia Institute of Technology Richard McGee*, Associate Dean, Northwestern Univ. Robert McMahon+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Simon North+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Texas A&M Univ. Sharon L. Neal+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Delaware Mary Jo Ondrechen+, Prof., Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern Univ. Maria (Mia) Ong*, PI, at the Education Research Collaborative TERC Jennifer Shumaker-Parry+, Associate Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Utah Tanja Pietrass*, Director, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, & Biosciences, Department of Energy Owen Priest, Associate Prof. of Instruction, Northwestern Univ. Sara Prince*, Principal, McKinsey and Company Charles Rice+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Oklahoma Gregory H. Robinson+*, Distinguished Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Georgia Michael Rogers*, Director, Division of Pharmacology, Physiology, & Biological Chemistry, National Institute of General Medical Sciences Cyndi Rowland*, Director, National Center Disabilities and Access, Utah State Univ. Nicole S. Sampson+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Stony Brook Univ. John SantaLucia+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Wayne State Univ. Charles Schmuttenmaer+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Yale Univ. 99 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Kimberly Schurmeier*, Assistant Director, Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology Denise Sekaquaptewa, Prof., Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Michigan Timothy J. Shaw+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of South Carolina Dontarie Stallings*, OXIDE Research & Program Manager, Georgia Institute of Technology Jean Stockard, Emeritus Prof., Planning, Public Policy & Management, Univ. Oregon Peter C. Stair+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Northwestern Univ. Timothy M. Swager+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Diego Troya+, Associate Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Cathy Tway, R&D Director, The Dow Chemical Company Adam Veige+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Florida Isiah Warner+, Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, Louisiana State Univ. Alveda Williams, Human Resources Director, The Dow Chemical Company


APPENDIX 2 Workshop Agenda of NDEW 2015



References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

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. 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.) Nelson, D. J.; Brammer, C. N. A National Analysis of Minorities in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities; University of Oklahoma: Norman, OK, 2010. http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/ Donna.J.Nelson-1/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) 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. Hernandez, R. Advancing The Chemical Sciences Through Diversity. Chem. Eng. News 2014, 92, 45. Hernandez, R.; Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K. In Diversity in the Scientific Community Volume 1: Quantifying Diversity and Formulating Success; Nelson, D. J., Cheng, H. N., Eds; ACS Symposium Series 1255; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Chapter 4, pp 101−112. Laursen, S. L.; Weston, T. J. Trends in Ph.D. Productivity and Diversity in Top-50 U.S. Chemistry Departments: An Institutional Analysis. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1762–1776. National Science Foundation. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ 2017/nsf17310/static/data/tab7-4.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). 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: Arlington, VA. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/data/ tab8-1.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018). Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Faculty Demographics Data; http:// oxide.jhu.edu/2/demographics (accessed April 3rd, 2018). Wang, L. Diversifying Chemistry Faculty. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89, 46–47. Wang, L.; Rovner, S. L. Diversifying Academia. Chem. Eng. News 2015, 93, 37–39. Colby, S. L.; Ortman, J. M. Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2015. 103 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

15. 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/ ChemistswithDisabilitesRpt_web_sm.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) 16. 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. 17. 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.) 18. Casadevall, A.; Handelsman, J. The Presence of Female Conveners Correlates with a Higher Proportion of Female Speakers at Scientific Symposia. mBio 2014, 5, e00846–13. 19. Casadevall, A. Achieving Speaker Gender Equity at the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting. mBio 2015, 6, e01146–15. 20. Bug Graves, A. Swimming against the unseen tide. Physics World 2010, 16–17 [Online]. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/23/08/27. http:// iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/23/08/27. 21. 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. 22. Dobbin, F.; Kalev, A. Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work; Roberson, Q., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, 2013; pp 253−281. 23. Ong, M.; Wright, C.; Espinosa, L. L.; Orfield, G. Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2011, 81, 172–209. 24. Ong, M.; Smith, J. M.; Ko, L. T. Counterspaces for Women of Color in STEM Higher Education: Marginal andCentral Spaces for Persistence and Success. J Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 55, 206–245. 25. Hunt, V.; Layton, D.; Prince, S. Diversity Matters; McKinsey & Company: New York, 2014. https://assets.mckinsey.com/~/media/ 857F440109AA4D13A54D9C496D86ED58.ashx 26. Grunert, M. L.; Bodner, G. M. Underneath it all: Gender role identification and women chemists’ career choices. Sci. Educ. Int. 2011, 22, 292–301. 27. Thakore, B. K.; Naffziger-Hirsch, M. E.; Richardson, J. L.; Williams, S. N.; McGee, R. The Academy for Future Science Faculty: Randomized controlled trial of theory-driven coaching to shape development and diversity of earlycareer scientists. BMC Med. Educ. 2014, 14. 104 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

28. Cech, E. A. Ideological Wage Inequalities? The Technical/Social Dualism and the Gender Wage Gap in Engineering. Social Forces 2013, 91, 1147–1182. 29. Cech, E. A. Engineers and Engineeresses? Self Concenptions and the development of gendered professional identities. Sociol. Perspect. 2014, 58. 30. 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. 31. Shaw, A. K.; Stanton, D. E. Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proc. R. Soc. London [Biol.] 2012, 279, 3736–3741. 32. Cannady, M. A.; Greenwald, E.; Harris, K. N. Problematizing the STEM Pipeline Metaphor: Is the STEM PipelineMetaphor Serving Our Students and the STEM Workforce? Sci. Educ. 2014, 98, 443–460. 33. 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. 34. Reuben, E.; Sapienza, P.; Zingales, L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., U.S.A. 2014, 111, 4403–4408. 35. Malcom, S. M.; Hall, P. Q.; Brown, J. W. The double bind: The price of being a minority woman in science; 1976. http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/ Diversity/1975-DoubleBind.pdf (accessed March 31, 2018.) 36. Ong, M.; Wright, C.; Espinosa, L. L.; Orfield, G. Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Undergraduate and Graduate Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2011, 81, 172–209. 37. Hines, S. M.; Rodriguez, D.; Chinn, P. W. U. The Effect of Wider Participation among Women of Color on Science Teaching and Science Teacher Education. American Educational Research Association [Online]; New Orleans, LA, 1994. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED374013 (accessed April 4, 2018.) 38. MarLachlan, A. J. The Lives and Careers of Minority Women Scientists. In National Association of Women in Education (NAWE) Conference; New Orleans, LA, 2000. 39. Harrison, L. The Joys and Struggles of Women of Color in Academia | Science Careers, 2002. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/ previous_issues/articles/2002_02_15/nodoi.11476556912076032199 (accessed 2002/02/15/.) 40. Hamilton, K. Faculty Science Positions Continue to Elude Women of Color: Oklahoma Professor’s Study Finds Hiring, Tenure Remain Stumbling Blocks. J. Blacks High. Educ. 2004, 21, 36. 41. Johnson, A. C. Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Sci. Educ. 2007, 91, 805–821. 42. Leggon, C. B. Diversifying Science and Engineering Faculties: Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender. Am. Behav. Sci. 2010, 53, 1013–1028. 105 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

43. Pololi, L.; Cooper, L. A.; Carr, P. Race, disadvantage and faculty experiences in academic medicine. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2010, 25, 1363–1369. 44. Constantine, M. G.; Sue, D. W. Perceptions of racial microaggressions among black supervisees in cross-racial dyads. J. Couns. Psychol. 2007, 54, 142–153. 45. Wells, C. Microaggressions in the contect of academic communities. Seattle J. Soc. Just. 2013, 12, 319–348. 46. Roux, C. Safe Spaces: Human Rights Education in Diverse Diverse; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, 2012; Vol. 5. 47. Cech, E. A. Engineering Education for Social Justice: Critical Explorations and Opportunities; Lucena, J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, 2013; Vol. 10, pp 67−84. 48. 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. 49. Fuhrmann, C. N.; Halme, D. G.; O’Sullivan, P. S.; Lindstaedt, B. Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline: Recommendations Based on a Survey of Doctoral Students in the Basic Biomedical Sciences. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2011, 10, 239–249. 50. Plaut, V. C.; Thomas, K. M.; Goren, M. J. Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 444–446. 51. Ragins, B. R.; Scandura, T. A. Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Acad. Manage. J. 1994, 37, 957–971. 52. Paglis, L. L. G. S. G.; Bauer, T. N. Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Res. High Educ. 2006, 47. 53. Marx, D. M.; Roman, J. S. Female Role Models: Protecting Women’s Math Test Performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 2002, 28, 1183–1193. 54. Nick, J. N.; Delahoyde, T. M.; Del Prato, D.; Mitchell, C.; Ortiz, J.; Ottley, C.; Young, P.; Cannon, S. B.; Lasater, K.; Reising, D.; Siktberg, L. Best Practices in Academic Mentoring: A Model for Excellence. Nurs. Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 9. 55. Robinson, G.; Dechant, K. Building a Business Case for Diversity. Acad. Manage. J. 1997, 11, 21–31. 56. Herring, C. Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2009, 74, 208–224. 57. Rose, D. H.; Meyer, A. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning; Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development: Wakefield, MA, 2002. 58. Iwarsson, S.; Stahl, A. Accessibility, usability and universal designpositioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 57–66. 59. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. National Diversity Equity Workshop 2017: Focus on Underrepresented Minorities in Chemistry Faculties. In National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (2011-2017); ACS Symposium Series 1277; Hernandez, R., Stallings, D., Iyer, S. K., 106 Hernandez et al.; National Diversity Equity Workshops in Chemical Sciences (20112017) ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

60.

61.

62.

63.

Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 2018; Chapter 5, pp 109−140. Watt, S.; Hernandez, R. Chair Recommendations from National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW 2013); http://oxide.jhu.edu/src/NDEW/2013/ NDEW2013_Recommendations_for_Chairs.pdf. Stallings, D.; Iyer, S. K.; Hernandez, R. Chair Recommendations from National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW 2015); http://oxide.jhu.edu/ src/NDEW/2015/NDEW2015_Recommendation_For_Chairs.pdf (accessed April 1, 2018.) Hernandez, R.; Watt, S. Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise, 2014; Vol. 1169, Chapter 19, pp 207-224. Safe Space – EQUAL!, 2013/10/22/20:25:20. http://www.equal.org/safespace-program/files/657/safe-space-program.html (accessed March 31, 2018).


National Diversity Equity Workshop 2015: Intersectionality in

Recommend Documents