Read on Twitter
Night owl thread. Not long ago, I finished my 3-year term on a national committee with the worst acronym, the Advisory Committee on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Program (ACEDIP). It's pronounced AY-suh-dip. (I died a little inside every time I said it.) https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/advisory_committee_on_equity-eng.aspx
At one of our meetings (2018, I believe?) people came to present their work in progress on the design of a new Canadian program based on Athena Swan. One of their questions was, basically, “Should we start with gender, like the UK did, and expand from there?”
The committee’s unanimous, unequivocal response was: no. We weren’t involved beyond that meeting, but I was glad that the final program, Dimensions, aimed to address multiple dimensions of identity (not as many as I’d like, but it’s a start.) https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/EDI-EDI/Dimensions_Dimensions_eng.asp
Amidst other committee members explaining why ‘gender first’ was not the best way forward, I noted: Efforts to close gaps haven’t yet closed any, but appear to have led to more progress for white women than for other groups. We shouldn’t do things that lead to unequal progress.
Examples of what I mean: https://twitter.com/amydiehl/status/1277056657063886850 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27306969/
Others in the room made similar points (I particularly liked Dr. @MalindaSmith’s suggestion to shift focus from under- to over-representation … it’s a brilliant way to reframe the issue) and I definitely wasn’t the only one raising issues with a ‘gender first’ plan.
But I specifically raised the issue of how gender equity efforts have a tendency to benefit white women most. It was important that that point be explicitly acknowledged by a white woman, because that’s how power works in those kinds of discussions.
That is what so many current issues in academia are about: power. Who has more, who has less. How it is used, shared, or hoarded.
The playing field isn’t level. It tilts on multiple axes. One thing that all academics can do is consider how we can use our power to level it.
The playing field isn’t level. It tilts on multiple axes. One thing that all academics can do is consider how we can use our power to level it.
After some reflection over the past months (and also checking with some others involved in these stories), I decided to share some practical approaches/actions that have worked for me so that other academics might possibly use them, too, if they aren’t already doing these things.
I confess I’m uncomfortable posting this thread. I’m doing it because real examples so are often useful. But they can come across as self-congratulatory, which feels gross & does not reflect how I feel about doing my job. Usually, I just do these things, I don't talk about them.
So just to be extra clear: I think part of the job of every academic is to do what we can to leave our institution, field, students, and academia better than we found them. I’m just doing my job as best as I can. I don’t need or want cookies for doing my job.
Also, like all humans, I don’t always get things right. I have stumbled, people have been graceful with me, and I am grateful for their grace. These are just examples of approaches/actions that have worked, and therefore might be useful to others.
All examples below are from my role as professor, some pre-tenure, some post. I have fewer examples from when I was a graduate student or postdoc. I didn’t have as much power, didn’t know as much, and was just trying to get through. https://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/991325700610240512
With all those caveats made, I offer a list of actions academics, especially professors/scientists/PIs, can use to help level the playing field of academia.
ACTION 1: Handle irritants/barriers so your colleagues don’t have to. Notice the irritants, recognize the barriers, and use your power/social capital to remove them.
For example, I have a Black colleague who had sailed past the requirements for tenure. There was no question she’d earned it. But to submit her dossier, she needed a letter a higher-up hadn’t yet signed, for flimsy reasons.
So I dropped by the higher-up’s office and made a polite but persistent nuisance of myself pointing out how flimsy and baseless the reasons were. Letter signed.
I know others who have done similar things for their colleagues, especially when it came time for their application for tenure and promotion. Until this kind of collegiality is no longer necessary, this is one way to make things better in a dept, faculty, institution, or field.
ACTION 2: Get people invited instead of or in addition to you. Share your network. It is a source of power.
The first time I did this, I was nervous. I didn’t know yet that this happens all the time. This is one way power is shared in academia, often by senior people to junior people in their circles. Now I do it routinely. How I do it:
Addition: “Thanks so much for the invitation! That sounds amazing. I’m definitely interested. Given the topic, I’m wondering if you might be interested in inviting my colleague Dr. A as well?”
“She would be an excellent addition to the panel/event/grant/paper. She’s an expert in XYZ and a great speaker/thoughtful contributor/excellent co-investigator. Here’s her website/1-2 of her publications.”
Substitution: “Thanks so much for the invitation! That sounds amazing. I wish I could, but I don’t think I’m the best person for this. Given the topic, I’m wondering if you might be interested in inviting my colleague Dr. A instead. She’s an expert in XYZ.”
“She would be excellent for your panel/event/grant/paper. She’s a great speaker/thoughtful contributor/excellent co-investigator. Here’s her website/1-2 of her publications.”
These are always genuine suggestions. I’m not shoehorning anyone in. I suggest colleagues who have expertise & perspectives that I think will add something not already present. It just makes sense to suggest bringing them in. I do this for all my colleagues.
But it happens more often for colleagues who belong to underrepresented groups, partly because of unequal networks. N.B. big grants, papers & positions often require networks. Sharing connections is one way to address inequalities. https://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/1105306353269125120?s=20
ACTION 3: Make balanced, inclusive short lists for invited speakers.
Good invited speakers do three things. They: 1) share interesting research, 2) give engaging, thought-provoking talks, and 3) serve as role models for trainees in the audience.
We know that role models matter. It meant the world to me the first time I saw a more senior, accomplished person mention her major chronic illness while giving a research talk. For anyone who faces extra barriers, it’s that much more important to see role models.
So make short lists with these things in mind. If you end up with a bunch of similar speakers, you aren’t going to achieve point 3, and you probably aren’t doing as well as you could on points 1 and 2, either.
When I co-chaired an international conference, we paid attention to those 3 points when making short lists. And lo and behold, after years of almost exclusively white male keynotes, we had a Black woman as keynote speaker.
In addition to it being an excellent keynote address (in my view and also according to many post-meeting evaluations), I know it mattered to some trainees and faculty in the audience, because they told me so.
ACTION 4: When you are on selection committees (grants, awards, hiring, etc.) help make sure the process is truly fair.
At least in Canada, many review guidelines these days state that reviewers should consider things beyond publications (e.g., community engagement, mentorship) when evaluating research impact, leadership, etc.
This is especially important in contexts like community-based participatory research, work done in partnership with Indigenous peoples, etc. But sometimes reviewers fall into lazy habits of just counting publications/impact factors & pretending those are objective numbers.
I’ve found it helpful to re-read the review guidelines just before meetings and have them open on my computer in discussions. (This is not necessary if you’re reviewing for an entity with program officers who do that job. That often isn’t the case in Canada.)
How this goes: “Can I just clarify? The review guidelines say XYZ. So doesn’t that mean we should be considering the candidate’s community engagement as described on pages --- as well as their publications?”
Or: “In the application, it says the candidate is the only Black faculty member & mentors a large number of students. That mentoring will take away from her time to write. According to the review guidelines on page xxx, we should take that into account when assessing the file.”
Sometimes these efforts carry the day, other times they don’t. https://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/1176905043095760896
I’ll also add here that although I’ve served on hiring committees, I haven’t yet been in a position to create positions. But for those who are in such positions, please consider cluster hires if you can.
ACTION 5: Use your power to get the issue on the radar when the stakes are high. Pay attention to big meetings. Take the time to attend, and use that opportunity.
At my institution, candidates for dean have to present at open meetings. The faculty vote on which candidate they prefer. The vote is not binding but it carries a lot of weight. That meeting has happened once so far in my 7 years.
It was an end-of-day meeting in a packed lecture hall, with 3 candidates (all white men) sitting at the front. It’s a rare opportunity when an assistant professor has power over a potential dean, and I knew that was a chance to get issues on the radar of the incoming dean.
When I had a chance to ask a question, I asked what their plans were to address the fact that we’ve never had a female dean and that nearly every professor in the room was white. I voted for the one who gave the best answer to that question, as did many others. He’s now our dean.
ACTION 6: Share resources and/or push for resources for people. Take a hit if needed.
For me, this has meant things like pushing for a higher rank for someone by ensuring their qualifications got re-reviewed, offering team grant funds that had been earmarked for me to others (both of those meant less $ for my research), and with colleagues @KC0nn0r, @MeghanAzad,
& @DrEmilyMarshall, clearly supporting ring-fencing funds for Indigenous health research when Indigenous researchers proposed the idea at a national meeting in 2016. We were the “early career investigator table,” so our support carried weight. That policy was implemented.
ACTION 7: Use your power & privilege to make things right, or at least more right. This is similar to action 1 (handle irritants/barriers.)
Example: I was once at a meeting, had recently checked in and was leaving the hotel to go for a run. As I crossed the lobby, I saw an invited guest from a First Nation checking in. I veered over to the desk to greet him with a hug and noticed that he seemed out of sorts.
Desk staff was insisting he couldn’t check in without a credit card, even though his hotel room was being paid by the organizing group. I was not involved in the logistics of that meeting but I knew they were not supposed to ask invited guests for credit cards.
Note that this is explicitly stated in these guidelines on page 19: https://diabetesaction.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TASK-FORCE-IN-PATIENT-ENGAGEMENT-COMPENSATION-REPORT_FINAL-1.pdf
I said, “Can you use my card? I’m Holly Witteman, in room 610.” They said OK. I had no ID, just my ratty workout clothes & white skin. I went for an angry run, came back, raised a fuss, and the host organization got the hotel manager to apologize, accompanied by a gift basket.
Gift baskets don’t make it all ok, but people should be treated respectfully. Raising a fuss when people haven’t been treated as respectfully as they should shows that others will stand with them.
ACTION 8: Amplify colleagues in meetings; for example, faculty meetings, network meetings, etc.
This is something I read about staff doing in high-pressure US political jobs. I thought it was a brilliant approach so I’ve been doing it ever since. E.g., “I just want to go back to X’s idea. I agree with her and I think we need to take the time to consider that.”
ACTION 9: Nominate people for awards.
I did not know this was a thing until way later in my career than I should have realized, but this is one of the things that networks do: nominate each other for awards. See this excellent thread: https://twitter.com/DevonGreyson/status/1281212317351522304
ACTION 10: Read, cite, promote people’s papers.
Papers and citations are the currency of academia. Partly because of unequal networks, partly because of siloed fields, partly because of structural and systemic racism, colonialism, ableism, sexism, etc., not all papers get the same due consideration.
I confess that I am struggling to keep up with reading right now, so I’m not doing the best job at this at the moment, but I try to do this by reading broadly, noting when I find an author I don’t know who does relevant research, and following their papers.
I hope these examples are helpful. They are not everything. Take what works for you, leave the rest. Thank you. Bonne nuit.
