Search for: All records

Despite institutional efforts, growth in the number of faculty of color has largely plateaued, limiting research innovation and other benefits of diversity. In this article, we seek to understand structural barriers to faculty equity by (a) detailing a theory of epistemic exclusion within academia and (b) applying the theory of epistemic exclusion to the specific context of faculty departmental reviews of scholarly research (e.g., annual review, promotion and tenure review). Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation that is rooted in disciplinary biases about the qualities of rigorous research and identity-based biases about the competence of marginalized group members. These biases work in tandem to systemically and disproportionately exclude marginalized scholars (e.g., people of color, women) from the academy. In the context of faculty departmental reviews, epistemic exclusion can happen in formal systems of evaluation through criteria, metric, and application exclusion. It can also occur informally during interpersonal interactions and communications through legitimacy, contribution, and comprehension exclusion. In this article, we detail each of these types of exclusion, how they may interact with each other, and their consequences. We assert that epistemic exclusion threatens the diversification of academia and offer suggestions for equitable evaluation practices and reducing epistemic exclusion within higher education broadly. 

Existing academic structures and norms perpetuate the mistreatment and marginalization of scholars resulting in a climate that is misaligned with the values of academics from marginalized groups. Therefore, we study how climates at multiple levels of the academy (i.e., research group, department, and professional field) shape marginalized scholars’ careers and career attitudes. Participants (N = 3,204) were doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows, and assistant professors from four science fields (biology, physics, economics, and psychology) who completed an online survey about psychological safety and intragroup conflict within their research group, climate of diversity within their department, climate of scholarly inclusion within their professional field, and their career outcomes. We conducted three general structural equation models with marginalized identity status predicting three career outcomes: turnover intentions, burnout disengagement, and burnout exhaustion. We also tested the mediation effect of climate at the levels of the research group, department, and profession on these career outcomes. Participants with a greater number of marginalized identities experienced a more negative climate at all three levels compared to those with no and fewer marginalized identities. The climate experienced at these three levels also significantly mediated all three career outcomes for marginalized scholars. Climate of scholarly inclusion at the level of the profession was especially strongly related to intent to leave and burnout. These results add to the breadth of research on multiply marginalized scholars’ negative experiences of academic climates and point to areas that may be particularly important for interventions. 

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists’ careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars’ experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars’ authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities. 

The space physics research community is not diverse. This is especially true at the senior experience levels, but is even true for our student populations, which are also not matching the demographics of the general public. Striving towards a demographic shift to match the general population promotes equity and inclusion. In addition, diversity increases research productivity. Unfortunately, bias exists, including within the space physics research community, and this negatively impacts hiring practices and perpetuates the demographic mismatch. Yet there are many strategies and tactics that can be adopted to counter this problem. A number of these methods are presented and discussed, specifically those regarding the search process for hiring new research group members. The key methods for achieving an equitable search process are as follows: develop a holistic rubric early, even before the job ad is posted; slow down the downselect from the full applicant pool to the short list of finalists so that the rubric can be carefully applied to each candidate; make the interview process as equitable as possible by considering the ways in which it could be biased; and conduct a fair decision-making process that focuses on the job-relevant criteria and avoids global rankings until the final vote. 

Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines ( N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.