https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6914-8271
Abstract
A consortium of scientific societies recently identified challenges to inclusivity within the biology communities they represent. Specifically, societies encounter difficulties collecting member demographic data effectively, integrating scientists at transitional career stages, and diversifying their leadership. In response, the Leveraging, Enhancing, and Developing Biology (LED-BIO) research coordination network (NSF 2134725) organized two meetings at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA to gather stakeholders and employ top-down and bottom-up organizational approaches to address these challenges. These meetings included Town Hall and Think Tank events to facilitate open dialogue and gather feedback on policies and programs from national organizations in attendance. These discussions provided valuable insights into the barriers societies face and the available resources and interventions societies use to promote inclusivity. This article uses the LED-BIO research coordination network as a case study to discuss the Town Hall-Think Tank-Consensus Building (TTC) methodology for advancing inclusive excellence in scientific communities.
Scientific societies have sought to foster inclusivity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) communities through various initiatives, including professional development programs for members from historically minoritized groups (Segarra et al. 2017, Segarra et al. 2020a). However, these programs face persistent challenges that have limited their ability to address systemic inequities and have undermined inclusivity efforts. The Alliance for Catalyzing Change in Equity of STEM Success (ACCESS) has shown that key challenges include a lack of effective demographic data collection, poor integration of scientists transitioning between career stages into society activities, and slow progress toward diversification of thought leadership.
These three challenges act as interconnected impediments to change within the cultural environments of scientific societies. For example, challenge 1 is a lack of demographic information that limits the ability to assess inclusivity when considering who is and is not served by the society or publicly recognized as a disciplinary thought leader, preventing the identification of structures and processes that may be exclusionary (Segarra et al. 2020b, 2020c). Organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have reported that no data were available on race or ethnicity for 46.9% (n = 13,480) of AAAS or Science associated memberships or for 87.8% (n = 49,316) of the authors and reviewers in the Science family (AAAS 2020). Sustainably collecting such demographic data will enhance inclusivity efforts across scientific disciplines by allowing scientific societies to understand their constituents better and to quantitatively assess the impact of diversity-focused programs toward their goal of building a more inclusive STEM workforce.
Challenge 2 highlights frequently missed opportunities for societies to provide a longitudinally stable framework for scientists as they navigate their career paths and associated transitions. Scientists are most likely to temporarily or permanently leave their disciplines during educational, career, and personal transitions, and there are a number of ways societies can help increase belonging and inclusivity. Under the traditional STEM workforce model, an individual enters their career path in a single place, moves through in a linear fashion, and enters the workforce after a prescribed set of experiences. This model fails to capture the diverse backgrounds and meandering trajectories of many people entering the STEM workforce today and overlooks the unique experiences of individuals, particularly those who are members of historically excluded groups in STEM fields (Cannady et al. 2014). Programs and institutions built around a linear model may fail to address the needs of those who enter the STEM workforce through nonlinear pathways. As an alternative to this pipeline model for career progression, the concept of a braided river model for STEM workforce development allows for varied pathways and values diverse entry points, goals, experiences, and evolving individual trajectories (Batchelor et al. 2021). Adapting programs and policies to such a model requires a robust support system that can uphold, sustain, embolden, and reengage a diverse group of scientists.
Challenge 3 is focused on the need to build mechanisms to diversify thought leadership by creating authentic leadership spaces where members can bring their full identities to the way they lead in the discipline. Scientific societies play a central role in establishing both disciplinary culture and steering the direction of their fields; they can promote broad dissemination of information and normalize conversations and practices about equity and inclusion. These practices make it possible to promote the scholarship of scientists that belong to groups that have historically been marginalized in STEM, affirming their identities, the topics they study, and the methodologies they employ by positioning them as leaders, speakers, and awardees, centrally placing them in scientific society culture. The inclusion of scientists from minoritized groups in STEM among speakers and awardees has anticipated benefits, in that it fosters the science identity of trainees with similar backgrounds (Kim-Prieto et al. 2013, Hagan et al. 2020). ACCESS has shown that data on the demographic composition of speakers at conferences and society award winners are rarely collected and analyzed, resulting in missed opportunities to better understand who is and is not publicly recognized as a thought leader (Segarra et al. 2020c). In the absence of such data, societies may default to searching for online biographies and photographs of leaders or award winners, likely leading to misassigning of identities, especially for individuals with intersectional identities (Shiffman et al. 2022).
The LED-BIO Research Coordination Network (RCN; NSF grant no. 2134725) seeks to develop community standards and solutions to these challenges and was formed as a collaboration between ACCESS, the Quality Education for Minorities Network (QEM), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) INCLUDES ASPIRE Alliance. LED-BIO organized two hybrid annual meetings (2022–2023) at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusets, in the United States, to integrate top-down and bottom-up organizational approaches to address diversity, equity, inclusivity, and justice (DEIJ) issues within STEM professional societies. For the first meeting in 2022, LED-BIO convened 55 participants identified as change agents with relevant scholarly and lived experiences. These individuals came from a broad range of historically excluded demographic backgrounds, including men and women who are members of the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) community. More than half of the participants identified as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color). Although the vast majority had obtained a PhD, many were first-generation college students. A significant fraction self-identified as having a disability. For the second meeting in 2023, the RCN gathered 33 professional society leaders representing various levels of responsibility and influence.
The 2022 and 2023 meetings dedicated 1 working day to developing solutions to each of the three major challenges identified. Each working day was designed to include town hall, think tank, and consensus building elements aimed at breaking down these challenges and identifying practices to successfully address them at the scientific community level. The town hall element had both remote and in-person components and fostered an open conversation among LED-BIO stakeholders, as well as among members of the public who learned of the event through social media and other outreach. The think tank and consensus-building components were conducted among a smaller group of which the majority joined in person and some remotely. All three elements facilitated an open dialogue and allowed the practitioners to provide feedback on the policies and programs created by national organizations. The discussions revealed detailed information about the barriers, resources, and interventions used by societies to meet the identified challenges. In this article, we discuss the town hall–think tank–consensus building (TTC) methodology for advancing inclusive excellence in scientific communities, using the LED-BIO RCN as a case study. Despite the identified challenges, scientific societies remain well positioned to act as nuclei for the dissemination of practices for scientific communities to achieve inclusive excellence.
Our approach to bringing stakeholders together: The TTC methodology
Our approach features a networking meeting model developed by QEM to effectively bring together stakeholders to address policy issues. Successful past applications of the model have addressed topics such as using technology to mitigate the effects of systemic inequities in STEM education, setting research agendas at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and broadening participation in STEM at HBCUs and tribal colleges (Toldson et al. 2019). In this model, a town hall event frames the challenges of interest, which precedes a think tank session aimed at tackling the issues being considered, followed by a consensus-building session in which the group weighs potential solutions and agrees on a plan of action. Leading up to the event, the town hall was widely advertised in the stakeholder community, recruiting attendees from a wide range of perspectives. Panelists and moderators were selected to structure the discussion and ensure that different voices would have an opportunity to be represented. The think tanks were open to a smaller group of scholarly and lived-experience experts to facilitate a deeper dive into the key issues articulated during the town hall. The LED-BIO RCN meeting methodology model is outlined in figure 1.
The TTC meeting structure and dynamics. Each day of the meeting is broken into three phases, in which subject matter experts with scholarly and lived experience are first recruited to join the interested community members during a town hall and continue the conversation during a think tank deep dive on the topic of interest, followed by consensus-building sessions. Throughout the three phases, moderators ensure the discussion remains on target, and notetakers are recruited to record the outcomes of the discussion. The ultimate goal is to be able to disseminate the findings within the broader community.
LED-BIO uses a three-phase approach to identify solutions to challenges that affect scientific societies. Although the first phase is open to the public, a group of invited subject matter experts (SME) participate in all three phases. We identify SMEs on the basis of both scholarly and lived experience perspectives. The meetings start with a town hall, an event open to the public during which the SMEs participate in a panel-led introduction and discussion to the focus topic (challenge) of the meeting day. The town hall is followed by a think tank, a series of SME-led breakout groups to build on the town hall’s findings. The day concludes with a consensus-building session, a final SME-led discussion to identify salient ideas and solutions to the discussed challenges.
In 2022, the goal of the LED-BIO meeting was to better understand the landscape of the challenges of interest from different perspectives and levels including those from different scholarly interests, lived experiences, and professional stages. To this end, during each phase of the event, the participants were tasked with identifying the barriers, resources, and strategies for each of the challenge areas. Each challenge used a number of discussion topics or prompts to address, identify, and develop potential successful strategies that would support equitable practices among societies (table 1). In 2023, the meeting convened society leaders with the goal of collectively identifying promising solutions and strategies that have been piloted or employed by the represented societies to meet the challenges of interest. The discussion prompts for 2023 are also listed in table 1. We discuss our reflections on key aspects of the TTC methodology below. As a case study, we also discuss the discussion outcomes for the LED-BIO RCN meetings.
Core challenges addressed by LED-BIO, associated discussion prompts, and identified areas for action. These prompts guided conversations during Town Halls, Think Tanks, and Consensus Building sessions at LED-BIO meetings.
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Discussion Topics or prompts (2022) | What kind of data should professional societies be collecting about their membership? How should this information be managed? How should professional societies make use of membership demographic data? What uses are inappropriate? How can professional societies increase response rates when carrying out demographic surveys of their membership? | What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What types of awareness, knowledge, and skills do scientists in transition need to develop as they seek to pursue a STEM career, and what evidence supports these needs? What are examples of societies and programming serving individuals at different transition stages, and what evidence supports the efficacy of this programming? | Why have societies not collected demographic data on their leadership/awardees in the past? What are the institutional barriers that prevent individuals from historically excluded backgrounds from rising as visible thought leaders in their scientific societies? What resources would facilitate individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as thought leaders in their scientific societies? Can we think of ways of shifting the work involved to the community instead of the individual? What interventions and strategies work and have potential for facilitating individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as leaders in their scientific societies? |
| Planning for action (2023) | What set of guidelines should ProSs follow to establish equitable data collection? What recommendations should ProSs follow? What things should they avoid? What resources do ProSs need to be able to use data to achieve their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals? | How might structural reforms, such as improving conference accessibility (physically, financially, professionally), reconsidering membership structures, and reassessing award programs, better support scientists in transition? How might Professional Societies position themselves to become a longitudinal professional home for their disciplinary scholars? What might Professional Societies do to impact disciplinary culture change? | In what ways can professional societies highlight scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages to ensure they are recognized and taken into account as leaders? How can professional societies avoid superficial and performative policies and structures that might prevent scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages from attaining leadership roles? How can professional societies avoid overemphasizing technical values in their leadership? How can professional societies create spaces for authentic leadership? |
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Discussion Topics or prompts (2022) | What kind of data should professional societies be collecting about their membership? How should this information be managed? How should professional societies make use of membership demographic data? What uses are inappropriate? How can professional societies increase response rates when carrying out demographic surveys of their membership? | What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What types of awareness, knowledge, and skills do scientists in transition need to develop as they seek to pursue a STEM career, and what evidence supports these needs? What are examples of societies and programming serving individuals at different transition stages, and what evidence supports the efficacy of this programming? | Why have societies not collected demographic data on their leadership/awardees in the past? What are the institutional barriers that prevent individuals from historically excluded backgrounds from rising as visible thought leaders in their scientific societies? What resources would facilitate individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as thought leaders in their scientific societies? Can we think of ways of shifting the work involved to the community instead of the individual? What interventions and strategies work and have potential for facilitating individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as leaders in their scientific societies? |
| Planning for action (2023) | What set of guidelines should ProSs follow to establish equitable data collection? What recommendations should ProSs follow? What things should they avoid? What resources do ProSs need to be able to use data to achieve their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals? | How might structural reforms, such as improving conference accessibility (physically, financially, professionally), reconsidering membership structures, and reassessing award programs, better support scientists in transition? How might Professional Societies position themselves to become a longitudinal professional home for their disciplinary scholars? What might Professional Societies do to impact disciplinary culture change? | In what ways can professional societies highlight scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages to ensure they are recognized and taken into account as leaders? How can professional societies avoid superficial and performative policies and structures that might prevent scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages from attaining leadership roles? How can professional societies avoid overemphasizing technical values in their leadership? How can professional societies create spaces for authentic leadership? |
Note: These prompts were used to provide focus to the discussion about the three challenges of interest during town halls, think tanks, and consensus building sessions at the LED-BIO meetings.
Core challenges addressed by LED-BIO, associated discussion prompts, and identified areas for action. These prompts guided conversations during Town Halls, Think Tanks, and Consensus Building sessions at LED-BIO meetings.
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Discussion Topics or prompts (2022) | What kind of data should professional societies be collecting about their membership? How should this information be managed? How should professional societies make use of membership demographic data? What uses are inappropriate? How can professional societies increase response rates when carrying out demographic surveys of their membership? | What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What types of awareness, knowledge, and skills do scientists in transition need to develop as they seek to pursue a STEM career, and what evidence supports these needs? What are examples of societies and programming serving individuals at different transition stages, and what evidence supports the efficacy of this programming? | Why have societies not collected demographic data on their leadership/awardees in the past? What are the institutional barriers that prevent individuals from historically excluded backgrounds from rising as visible thought leaders in their scientific societies? What resources would facilitate individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as thought leaders in their scientific societies? Can we think of ways of shifting the work involved to the community instead of the individual? What interventions and strategies work and have potential for facilitating individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as leaders in their scientific societies? |
| Planning for action (2023) | What set of guidelines should ProSs follow to establish equitable data collection? What recommendations should ProSs follow? What things should they avoid? What resources do ProSs need to be able to use data to achieve their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals? | How might structural reforms, such as improving conference accessibility (physically, financially, professionally), reconsidering membership structures, and reassessing award programs, better support scientists in transition? How might Professional Societies position themselves to become a longitudinal professional home for their disciplinary scholars? What might Professional Societies do to impact disciplinary culture change? | In what ways can professional societies highlight scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages to ensure they are recognized and taken into account as leaders? How can professional societies avoid superficial and performative policies and structures that might prevent scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages from attaining leadership roles? How can professional societies avoid overemphasizing technical values in their leadership? How can professional societies create spaces for authentic leadership? |
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Discussion Topics or prompts (2022) | What kind of data should professional societies be collecting about their membership? How should this information be managed? How should professional societies make use of membership demographic data? What uses are inappropriate? How can professional societies increase response rates when carrying out demographic surveys of their membership? | What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What systemic and structural barriers impede the success of scientists in transition and their access to society functions? What types of awareness, knowledge, and skills do scientists in transition need to develop as they seek to pursue a STEM career, and what evidence supports these needs? What are examples of societies and programming serving individuals at different transition stages, and what evidence supports the efficacy of this programming? | Why have societies not collected demographic data on their leadership/awardees in the past? What are the institutional barriers that prevent individuals from historically excluded backgrounds from rising as visible thought leaders in their scientific societies? What resources would facilitate individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as thought leaders in their scientific societies? Can we think of ways of shifting the work involved to the community instead of the individual? What interventions and strategies work and have potential for facilitating individuals from historically excluded backgrounds to rise as leaders in their scientific societies? |
| Planning for action (2023) | What set of guidelines should ProSs follow to establish equitable data collection? What recommendations should ProSs follow? What things should they avoid? What resources do ProSs need to be able to use data to achieve their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals? | How might structural reforms, such as improving conference accessibility (physically, financially, professionally), reconsidering membership structures, and reassessing award programs, better support scientists in transition? How might Professional Societies position themselves to become a longitudinal professional home for their disciplinary scholars? What might Professional Societies do to impact disciplinary culture change? | In what ways can professional societies highlight scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages to ensure they are recognized and taken into account as leaders? How can professional societies avoid superficial and performative policies and structures that might prevent scientists from historically excluded backgrounds, minority-serving institutions, or early career stages from attaining leadership roles? How can professional societies avoid overemphasizing technical values in their leadership? How can professional societies create spaces for authentic leadership? |
Note: These prompts were used to provide focus to the discussion about the three challenges of interest during town halls, think tanks, and consensus building sessions at the LED-BIO meetings.
Reflections on the TTC methodology
Creating inclusive and productive dialogue requires thoughtful preparation and skilled facilitation. Establishing psychological safety becomes paramount for meaningful engagement when implementing the TTC methodology across multiple days. This section explores how LED-BIO developed and maintained spaces where participants could navigate challenging discussions while minimizing interpersonal harm, ultimately leading to more effective outcomes. Through carefully designed operational agreements, dual moderation strategies, and structured support mechanisms, the framework enabled participants to engage authentically while maintaining mutual respect and understanding.
Cocreating a safe space for all
In multiday meetings using the TTC methodology, it is key to establish a safe environment for all participants so that differences of opinion can lead to productive discussions rather than halting conversation. LED-BIO accomplished this by providing the attendees with tools to advocate for themselves and to reduce interpersonal harm during discussions, including regular breaks to allow the individuals to decompress, prevent fatigue, and sustain high levels of engagement (Kotiadis et al. 2014, Campbell-Montalvo et al. 2020; El Naggar 2020).
Using operational agreements or guidelines and giving stakeholders an opportunity to build on the guidelines that will be used during discussions leads to more inclusive and effective outcomes, emphasizing the importance of community participation in creating safe spaces (Armstrong et al. 2018). LED-BIO has centered operational agreements that encourage participants to respect differences and provide real-time feedback to each other (Aguilar 2006, Sensoy and DiAngelo 2014)
Navigating discussions to minimize harm and promote collective impact also requires acknowledging the emotional aspects that are involved. Understanding the differences between guilt and regret in situations of interpersonal harm can help individuals process their emotions constructively (Zeelenberg and Breugelmans 2008). Incorporating emotional awareness and cultural perspectives into guideline development can create a more inclusive and empathetic discussion environment (Collazos et al. 2007). Grasping the complexities of interpersonal dynamics and emotional responses is crucial for fostering a supportive environment that minimizes harm and maximizes positive outcomes in discussions.
Effective collaborative moderation
The TTC methodology requires effective collaborative moderation. A major key to its success is employing two moderators: one to focus on the flow and nuances of the conversation and the other to identify any gaps and ensure all significant points are covered. This dual moderator approach enhances the depth and breadth of the discussion. In addition, moderators should concentrate solely on facilitating and not be distracted by note taking or other tasks, allowing them to listen deeply to stay fully engaged with the participants and maintain a fluid, responsive dynamic. A number of previously published resources and guides describe the most promising practices for moderators (Kawasaki 2006, Owyang 2008, Kirsner 2013, Graveline 2015, AAAS 2024, Iyer et al. 2024). By being adaptable and responsive, moderators help build a sense of collective ownership and commitment to the discussion's outcomes, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the TTC methodology.
Generation of deliverables to amplify impact
The TTC approach lends itself to the generation of deliverables including reports, guidelines, strategic plans, and calls for action, ensuring impactful outcomes. The moderators and notetakers ask clarifying questions during discussions, helping the participants collectively identify key ideas to share forward and concrete plans for future action. Aligning these action items with the broader goals of the group ensures that the insights generated during the meeting translate into real-world change, sustaining momentum and fostering progress. This article serves as the deliverable generated by the LED-BIO RCN for dissemination.
Discussion outcomes
This section will provide a comprehensive summary of the barriers, resources, and promising interventions identified by scientific societies and their members during the 2022 and 2023 LED-BIO meetings. Using the TTC methodology, the key challenges to inclusivity within scientific communities were dissected, revealing structural impediments and suggesting actionable pathways for improvement. In this section, we discuss the primary challenges identified, emphasizing the vision for scientific societies to serve as robust support systems that foster cultural change and support the long-term career development of their members. Each challenge is explored in detail, outlining the barriers, available resources, and recommended interventions to advance inclusivity in scientific communities.
Table 2 summarizes the barriers, resources, and promising interventions, as perceived by scientific societies and their members, that were discussed at the 2022 LED-BIO meeting. Figure 2 distills these findings into salient points, highlighting the barriers and potential areas for action using the TTC methodology at the 2022 meeting. The underlying barriers identified were structural and the action areas bring forth a vision for the future where scientific societies will provide a scaffold and robust support system that can sustain cultural change as well as the longitudinal career evolution and development of their members. We discuss the highlights for each challenge below.
A summary of the underlying barriers to inclusivity in scientific societies and the key action areas identified at the 2022 LED-BIO RCN meeting.
Barriers, resources, and promising interventions discussed at the 2022 LED-BIO meeting.
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Barriers | Poor understanding of the reasons to collect demographic data, lack of transparency from leadership, lack of planning for appropriate data collection, lack of meaningful action after data collection | Financial resources, human capital (e.g., lack of role models and mentors), professional conference accessibility (physical, financial, cultural) and membership structure, career path bias, biased policies and procedures (hiring, admission, review). | Selection bias/gatekeeping, non-inclusive metrics/criteria for selection, tokenism, lack of transparency |
| Resources | Framework for equitable data collection can help societies develop a cohesive data collection and action plan, moving beyond “tick the box” surveys | Career development skills (e.g., career path knowledge, interview skills, entrepreneurial training), networks (e.g., peer network, mentor networks, collaboration opportunities, soft skills (e.g., communication, collaboration), STEM skills (e.g., grant writing, technical training), open access resources (e.g., journals, databases), online learning (MOOCs, learning communities, asynchronous learning) | Blind review, selection rubrics data (e.g., speaker demographic data), leadership succession planning, term limits |
| Interventions | Incentivize and normalize participation in surveys, develop a clear plan to communicate results and actions taken, avoid survey fatigue, build flexibility into survey design | Training opportunities (e.g., internships), professional development, mentorship, career fairs, funding, affinity groups, organizational diversity audit, industry partnerships, longitudinal member tracking, support of high school pipeline. | Inclusive leadership training for leaders, Authentic leadership spaces, Opportunities for membership feedback |
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Barriers | Poor understanding of the reasons to collect demographic data, lack of transparency from leadership, lack of planning for appropriate data collection, lack of meaningful action after data collection | Financial resources, human capital (e.g., lack of role models and mentors), professional conference accessibility (physical, financial, cultural) and membership structure, career path bias, biased policies and procedures (hiring, admission, review). | Selection bias/gatekeeping, non-inclusive metrics/criteria for selection, tokenism, lack of transparency |
| Resources | Framework for equitable data collection can help societies develop a cohesive data collection and action plan, moving beyond “tick the box” surveys | Career development skills (e.g., career path knowledge, interview skills, entrepreneurial training), networks (e.g., peer network, mentor networks, collaboration opportunities, soft skills (e.g., communication, collaboration), STEM skills (e.g., grant writing, technical training), open access resources (e.g., journals, databases), online learning (MOOCs, learning communities, asynchronous learning) | Blind review, selection rubrics data (e.g., speaker demographic data), leadership succession planning, term limits |
| Interventions | Incentivize and normalize participation in surveys, develop a clear plan to communicate results and actions taken, avoid survey fatigue, build flexibility into survey design | Training opportunities (e.g., internships), professional development, mentorship, career fairs, funding, affinity groups, organizational diversity audit, industry partnerships, longitudinal member tracking, support of high school pipeline. | Inclusive leadership training for leaders, Authentic leadership spaces, Opportunities for membership feedback |
Note: Using the TTC methodology, the questions and prompts outlined in table 1 were used to facilitate the identification of barriers impeding change toward inclusivity in the different challenge areas. Resources perceived by the communities as tools that could be used in society interventions to facilitate change were also identified.
Barriers, resources, and promising interventions discussed at the 2022 LED-BIO meeting.
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Barriers | Poor understanding of the reasons to collect demographic data, lack of transparency from leadership, lack of planning for appropriate data collection, lack of meaningful action after data collection | Financial resources, human capital (e.g., lack of role models and mentors), professional conference accessibility (physical, financial, cultural) and membership structure, career path bias, biased policies and procedures (hiring, admission, review). | Selection bias/gatekeeping, non-inclusive metrics/criteria for selection, tokenism, lack of transparency |
| Resources | Framework for equitable data collection can help societies develop a cohesive data collection and action plan, moving beyond “tick the box” surveys | Career development skills (e.g., career path knowledge, interview skills, entrepreneurial training), networks (e.g., peer network, mentor networks, collaboration opportunities, soft skills (e.g., communication, collaboration), STEM skills (e.g., grant writing, technical training), open access resources (e.g., journals, databases), online learning (MOOCs, learning communities, asynchronous learning) | Blind review, selection rubrics data (e.g., speaker demographic data), leadership succession planning, term limits |
| Interventions | Incentivize and normalize participation in surveys, develop a clear plan to communicate results and actions taken, avoid survey fatigue, build flexibility into survey design | Training opportunities (e.g., internships), professional development, mentorship, career fairs, funding, affinity groups, organizational diversity audit, industry partnerships, longitudinal member tracking, support of high school pipeline. | Inclusive leadership training for leaders, Authentic leadership spaces, Opportunities for membership feedback |
| Challenges | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| A lack of data to track scientific society membership demographic composition | A lack of integration of scientists in transitional career stages into disciplinary CoPs | A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders, including speakers and awardees in scientific programs | |
| Barriers | Poor understanding of the reasons to collect demographic data, lack of transparency from leadership, lack of planning for appropriate data collection, lack of meaningful action after data collection | Financial resources, human capital (e.g., lack of role models and mentors), professional conference accessibility (physical, financial, cultural) and membership structure, career path bias, biased policies and procedures (hiring, admission, review). | Selection bias/gatekeeping, non-inclusive metrics/criteria for selection, tokenism, lack of transparency |
| Resources | Framework for equitable data collection can help societies develop a cohesive data collection and action plan, moving beyond “tick the box” surveys | Career development skills (e.g., career path knowledge, interview skills, entrepreneurial training), networks (e.g., peer network, mentor networks, collaboration opportunities, soft skills (e.g., communication, collaboration), STEM skills (e.g., grant writing, technical training), open access resources (e.g., journals, databases), online learning (MOOCs, learning communities, asynchronous learning) | Blind review, selection rubrics data (e.g., speaker demographic data), leadership succession planning, term limits |
| Interventions | Incentivize and normalize participation in surveys, develop a clear plan to communicate results and actions taken, avoid survey fatigue, build flexibility into survey design | Training opportunities (e.g., internships), professional development, mentorship, career fairs, funding, affinity groups, organizational diversity audit, industry partnerships, longitudinal member tracking, support of high school pipeline. | Inclusive leadership training for leaders, Authentic leadership spaces, Opportunities for membership feedback |
Note: Using the TTC methodology, the questions and prompts outlined in table 1 were used to facilitate the identification of barriers impeding change toward inclusivity in the different challenge areas. Resources perceived by the communities as tools that could be used in society interventions to facilitate change were also identified.
Challenge 1: A lack of data needed to fully understand how the demographics of scientific society membership are affected by their efforts to create inclusive scientific communities
Societies have to collect data if they want to know if their programming is reaching and benefiting all members equally. Societies cannot know if groups are being excluded without clear goals and some kind of data collection. However, the town hall participants expressed that, as members, they did not want to be surveyed unless there was a good reason and that they wanted transparency from the leadership about equity and inclusion goals that could be met by collecting data. Likewise, societies are hesitant to dedicate resources to high-quality data collection without knowing the results would be useful. The opposing concerns of these two groups create a feedback loop that presents a significant barrier, preventing societies from fully understanding their membership and meeting their needs. One obvious approach to supporting societies in overcoming this barrier would be to create a standard LED-BIO survey and provide a set of general strategies for societies to follow to get their members to complete it. As a result of the discussions during our first meeting, it became clear that this was not the best way to help societies address issues with equity and inclusion. Instead, the participants wanted to see LED-BIO work to encourage societies to be thoughtful and create a long-term plan for equitable data collection. Rather than following a standard protocol, planning for data collection should be linked with initiative outcome development so that the data collected assesses what is intended. Furthermore, society leaders should be prepared to act on the data collected, and, in an iterative process, to continue to collect data to assess whether the actions taken are successful in creating change toward the established goals.
LED-BIO used the information shared during the 2022 meeting to create a suggested framework (figure 3) to help streamline that process. The first step of the process is to gather a team that is qualified to collect and analyze demographic data. The team should also be invested in addressing the difficult issues that can be revealed by data collection. Together with leadership, this team should establish the goals of data collection. Clear goals can be used to identify the important questions about membership that the team hopes to answer by collecting data. Once the team has determined what they hope to learn, they should consider a variety of methods of collecting data, rather than assuming a survey will provide the right kind of data to address the questions that need to be answered. In designing their data collection plan, the team should also consider what kind of analysis will be best to make sense of the information they will assemble. The results of their analysis should point directly toward actions that can be taken to meet their DEIJ goals. At this point, the team should be ready to work their way around the cycle again, this time assessing whether the actions taken have been effective in generating positive change.
LED-BIO's framework for equitable membership data collection. Each step around the cycle contributes to the work of improving the society culture. In this model, data collection is part of an iterative process where each step around the cycle contributes to the work of improving society culture. The cyclic nature of the framework highlights the fact that there will always be more we can do and iterate to ensure that all members feel that they have a home in the society.
If the leadership has an equity and inclusion agenda prior to rolling out a survey or initiating some other type of data collection, they can be transparent with their members about their goals. This, in turn, should result in better buy-in from the members and higher participation or completion rates for the survey. Identifying goals in advance is essential to ensure that the data collection approach will fit the society's needs. Furthermore, with DEIJ goals in place, societies can immediately put the data they collect to good use.
Challenge 2: A lack of integration of scientists in transitional stages of their careers into disciplinary communities of practice
The linear STEM career pipeline is no longer the most common career path for scientists navigating a STEM career. Supporting and tracking scientists throughout their varied career paths will help attract and retain a more diverse STEM workforce.
In the first think tank and town hall, most of the STEM expert participants identified as currently or recently in transitional career stages. These participants were able to identify barriers to full inclusion in their scientific disciplinary field, including professional society conference accessibility and membership dues structures; availability of longitudinal career path programming, such as career and skill-training programs; collaboration opportunities; mentoring networks; open access resources, such as databases and journals; examining the society or disciplinary cultures, including hiring, admission, and review practices; prioritizing career preparation as an integral component of professional training; and valuation of nonnormative behavior, thinking, research, and career paths.
In the second town hall and think tank, the professional society leader participants brought perspectives and examples of how they have successfully initiated or supported organizational change and where those efforts have stalled. There was an acknowledgement of the need to better understand and track the various entry and exit points in their members. Identifying and tracking participants from undergraduate (or high school) onward can clarify who these scientists in transition are in their discipline, where they are coming from, and where they are getting lost. With that data and looking at their strategic plan, societies can identify what pieces they want to work on and which will be most impactful. Who do they want to better include? Many societies are financially strapped, so the expansion of programming needs to be supported with increased financial resources or needs to be low cost. Strategic partnerships might help address that. There was a concern to pay attention to language and the messaging being sent. What assumptions does the society carry about topics such as scholarship, training, academic versus nonacademic positions, and high-quality research? There are many exemplary programs that attract and support scientists from historically excluded groups that are members of professional societies, so there is value in cross-connection between societies to share ideas and successes.
Challenge 3: A lack of inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders within scientific societies, including speakers in scientific programs
RCN members agree that social practices such as implicit biases, tokenism, and gatekeeping are the barriers at the root of the lack of inclusivity among scientific society leadership and those highlighted as speakers and awardees at disciplinary events. If a society has no built-in ways to mitigate bias in leader nomination and selection, it is likely that the mechanisms being used perpetuate the lack of inclusivity in their leadership ranks. Even when society leaders have access to DEIJ training, processes to mitigate bias are needed for checks and balances in the governing bodies of the scientific societies (figure 4). The processes that are used by societies to foster inclusivity in leader nomination and selection include selection by a diverse group or committee of individuals, blinded review of candidates, and selection rubrics that do not overemphasize technical values but also center on inclusive ways of doing science and working with colleagues, including trainees. Term limits and staggered terms for leadership are also used by societies to ensure varied representation of voices at the helm.
LED-BIO's framework for inclusive leadership. Three types of solutions were identified by the RCN as contributing to an inclusive leadership culture, those that focus on the individual, the organization, and ensuring accountability through transparency.
All in all, a society's inclusivity goals should inform the creation of transparent processes for the identification of leaders, speakers, and awardees (figure 4). Society processes can often be formalized by the creation of standard operating procedures (SOPs) that can be followed and modified as the needs of the community change. Having the society team in charge of awards and program speaker selection use an SOP to guide their activities can be a great tool that transcends the test of time as society staff and volunteer turnover. Accountability strategies can be built in as part of these SOPs. Transparency was perceived by the community as important for accountability. Accountability can also be in the form of communication with membership or with committees or boards with supervisory and consulting roles. Accountability can also come in the form of external evaluation.
One of the difficulties in societies adopting measures that counteract exclusionary social practices is the lack of examples or case studies that can be modeled or used as references. This leaves the societies wanting to implement these measures but having little knowledge about how to actually operationalize these strategies. Keeping this in mind, and as agencies such as the NSF continue to fund scientific society cultural change through mechanisms such as the Leading Culture Change through Professional Societies of Biology (BIO-LEAPS), the Organizational Change for Gender Equity in STEM Academic Professions (ADVANCE), and the Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science Initiative (INCLUDES) grants, it is imperative that societies find ways to disseminate strategies and artifacts that can serve as the foundation for the community to build on, individually and as a collective.
Another important element of building inclusivity among highly visible thought leaders within scientific societies was to start nurturing this talent early, encouraging early career scientists, especially those from historically excluded groups, to get involved and help societies explore new ways of working. There are a number of ways in which societies foster society leadership talent early on—for example, through capacitation programs such as workshops and structured mentoring. At the structural or organizational level, societies can have as part of their governance structure committees that center on early career as well as have dedicated seats on their board, council, or executive groups for these up and coming scientists—the future of the discipline.
Conclusions and call for action: Catalyzing collective impact for cultural change
Individual scientific societies have often implemented similar strategies in parallel efforts to create more inclusive scientific communities. The present report describes a multisociety collaboration to examine new paradigms to guide our societies’ inclusivity efforts and collective impact, leveraging both data and lived experience to identify and share which practices work best (figure 5).
LED-BIO's call for action for STEM societies to collaboratively catalyze inclusive cultural change. To find innovative ways to build inclusive scientific environments and communities, societies can sustain interactions to share resources, including examples of what the operationalization of inclusive practices looks like, and copilot or research new paradigms.
Research on inclusivity in STEM currently suffers from a lack of concrete examples of the operationalization of practices that shift the culture of our scientific communities toward inclusivity. It is particularly important that societies and professional organizations find ways to ensure exchange of information and artifacts, because resource mechanisms including BIO-LEAPS, ADVANCE, and INCLUDES are increasingly going to scientific societies and professional organizations to innovate toward inclusive organizational cultural change.
Efforts such as the INCLUDES Coordination Hub and S-STEM-Hubs have increased the profile and visibility of national efforts that center on broadening participation in STEM. These efforts could function as models for the creation of a national resource for scientific and professional organizations that serves as a central clearinghouse for information, artifacts, data, and promising practices for inclusive culture change. Having such an entity would catalyze opportunities for collective impact.
Acknowledgments
LED-BIO Research Coordination Network thanks the NSF for BIO-LEAPS funding (RCN; NSF Leading Culture Change through Professional Societies of Biology; BIO-LEAPS; grant no. 2134725). LED-BIO is a partnership that includes the Alliance to Catalyze Change in STEM Success (NSF grant no. 1744098), the Quality Education for Minorities Network, MSI STEM Research and Development Consortium, and the NSF INCLUDES ASPIRE Alliance (NSF grants no. 1834518, no. 1834522, no. 1834510, no. 1834513, no. 1834526, and no. 1834521). We thank all of our LED-BIO network members and the Marine Biological Laboratory for hosting our RCN meetings. We are also indebted to past co-PI Donald L. Gillian-Daniel at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for thoughtful discussions and contributions to the work, staff members who helped with meeting logistics including Ashanti Edwards (now at the American Geophysical Union), Cherisa Martin (now at Medici Road), Pam Pecku (now at the American Association for the Advancement of Science), and Tanika Coates at the American Society for Cell Biology, as well as undergraduate research assistants Sakib Hussen and Abdul Siam at Goucher College.
Author Biography
Taylor Lightner, Simone Soso, Candice M. Etson, Robin McC. Greenler, Mercy Mugo, and Verónica A. Segarra ([email protected]) are affiliated with the Leveraging, Enhancing, and Developing Biology program at the Research Coordination Network, in Baltimore, Maryland, in the United States. Taylor Lightner and Mercy Mugo are also affiliated with the Quality Education for Minorities Network, in Washington, DC, in the United States. Simone Soso is also affiliated with the MSI STEM Research and Development Consortium, in Washington, DC, in the United States. Candice M. Etson is also affiliated with the Department of Physics at Smith College, in Northampton, Massachusetts, in the United States. Robin McC. Greenler is also affiliated with the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin, in the United States. Verónica A. Segarra is also affiliated with the Departments of Biological Sciences and Chemistry at Goucher College, in Baltimore, Maryland, in the United States.
