In Amsterdam at the Gender Summit 2019, transforming science culture has been a major theme. Hanneke Takkenberg, Chair of Dutch Network of Women Professors gave us a great twist on a familiar thought. “Diversity is being invited to the party,” she said. “Inclusion is being able to choose the music to dance to.”
Implicit bias in science culture
Naomi Ellemers from Utrecht University confronted the tendency to disbelieve studies on implicit bias in science culture head-on. “Some people want to dismiss these studies – they blame the methodology or differences in region or disciplines. That’s why I like to quote study after study that all show the same effect.” She continued, “Benefiting from diversity is bloody hard work but the benefits are real.”
Ellemers set out research that showed how gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands (PNAS, 2015). “Selection criteria were coded towards male stereotypes and bias towards men emerged, especially when the quality of the researcher rather than the work was assessed,” she explained. In fields where more women are present, for example social sciences, you can become blinded to bias – in fact, even wider gender gaps in funding exist in these fields. Women are also less likely to be invited to speak at conferences, or even to be introduced with their professional titles.
“Senior women fit themselves into the stereotype of being masculine, report making more sacrifices and getting less institutional support as they climb the ladder. Role models seem to show you can be a successful scientist or a woman but you can’t be both,” she sighed. “Younger women don’t see this as a positive choice and may drop out as a result.”
By perpetuating stereotypes of masculine behaviour in science culture, we are not getting the true benefits of diversity. “We need to allow women to be different and to value that. Numbers don’t make a difference by themselves if everyone just conforms to the same stereotypes and culture,” she warned. Deep level differences and a climate for inclusion are better indicators of the success that should come with increased diversity, such as better well-being, lower levels of stress and less staff turnover.
How to change the culture
For those of us working in equality and diversity, there can be a strong focus on achieving visible diversity at a numbers level. Differences in age, culture and gender are the focus of many measures, but diversity of approach and values is what we should be looking for.
For Ellemers, the take home message is simple. “Move beyond numbers and send the message that you can be yourself and still belong.”
Marcel Wubbolts of Corbion agreed from an industrial research and development perspective. “Put inclusion first because you can do that from day one, diversity takes longer to achieve through new hires.”
Using examples from Imperial College, Stephen Curry told a similar story of working to reduce bias, particularly in the recruitment process. “We start with a proactive search, check whether the language in adverts is overly masculine or feminine and keep applicants anonymous at triage stage. We offer bias training for panels, try to achieve diverse panels, including EDI observers. We make sure all interviews and visits take place during core hours.”
“We want our interviews to be an explorative value-driven discussion, not an aggressive interview,” he summarised.
Curry went further. “We will integrate EDI into all our management processes – easier said than done, but it’s a start. We need competition without hyper-competition. We should reward researchers for collaboration and not just output.”
Peter Mollgaard of the University of Maastricht used to think that if you increase the numbers of a particular gender or background, say to a third, people start to feel at home and the rest follows. “Now I think we should start by creating an inclusive culture to achieve the numbers. As Peter Drucker supposedly said, ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’.”
For Naomi Ellesmers, implicit bias is like a seven-headed beast. “You cut off one, another grows in its place. The function of culture is to preserve the status quo. Culture is not a separate beast and will not adapt with new people – they will adapt to the culture. To change culture, you need to embed EDI in strategies and processes.”
Harassment, policy and funding
It’s tough to change culture for the better if harassment is part of the mix. Marijke Naezer, an independent expert, has examined harassment extensively in the academic sector and has found it can appear in many forms. “It is seldom a one-off,” she explained. “It mostly takes place over the long term, sometimes for years.”
Harassment can include scientific sabotage, such as removing funding or resources and sexual harassment through jokes, banter and pressing for dates, as well as actual violence. Physical and verbal harassment can include shouting, banging on tables and threats to kick someone off their PhD. Harassers may denigrate and undermine people by attacking their bodies, culture or skills and exclude them by refusing to make eye contact or cutting them out of social events. “Problematising ‘special needs’ such a pregnancy, miscarriages, illness, disability or bereavement can all form part of harassment,” said Naezer.
For Naezer, facilitators of harassment include strong hierarchies, a competitive culture and inadequate responses to complaints. The effects on individuals can be severe, including physical and mental harm, stifling career creativity and can ripple wider into families, peer groups and the output of the research group itself. “We need to see raised awareness, independent review and support structures and a culture of care,” she insisted.
Frederik Bondestam from the University of Gothenburg agreed. “There’s currently no evidence that policy has an impact on levels of harassment or that training courses have more than short term effects,” he outlined. “Bystanders have a much stronger effect. Individual complaints don’t change things by themselves, we need to address caring structures and leadership actions.”
Over in the US, Rhonda J Davis explained how the National Science Foundation has seen a strong focus on funding and harassment. In October 2018, the NSF introduced a requirement to report to them if PIs or co-PIs funded by the NSF are involved in sexual and other harassment or sexual violence. “In a survey, half said the NSF had gone too far with this requirement and half said we had not gone far enough,” she told us. “We seem to have found a sweet spot where no one is happy!”
“We can substitute or remove the PI, or if we are not satisfied with the institute’s measures we can reduce, remove or suspend the award. However, 90% of the time the NSF is happy with the measures already taken by the university, or taken once the case is discussed with them,” reassured Davis. “We are very clear. The NSF Will Not Tolerate Harassment,” she stressed.
The discussions around culture at the Gender Summit have led to many ideas on how to diversify, improve and expand science culture. However, we should all beware of the knowledge-action gap. Increased knowledge is of no benefit if that doesn’t then lead to action.
What can you do today to enhance the culture where you work or study?
KatieGee 