research paper on diversity and inclusion in the workplace

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, a majority of u.s. workers say focusing on dei at work is a good thing, but relatively small shares place great importance on diversity in their own workplace.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand how adults in the United States think about diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the workplace. This analysis is based on survey responses from 4,744 U.S. adults who are working part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people. The data was collected as part of a larger survey of workers conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Read more about the questions used for this report and the report’s methodology .

References to workers or employed adults include those who are employed part time or full time, are not self-employed, have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job, and whose company or organization has 10 or more people.

References to White, Black and Asian adults include those who are not Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

References to disabled workers include those who say a disability or handicap keeps them from fully participating in work, school, housework or other activities.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates . For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But opinions about DEI vary considerably along demographic and political lines.

Most workers have some experience with DEI measures at their workplace. About six-in-ten (61%) say their company or organization has policies that ensure fairness in hiring, pay or promotions, and 52% say they have trainings or meetings on DEI at work. Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member who promotes DEI (33%), that their workplace offers salary transparency (30%), and that it has affinity groups or employee resource groups based on a shared identity (26%). Majorities of those who have access to these measures say each has had a positive impact where they work.

Related : How Americans View Their Jobs

The value of DEI efforts at work

The importance of a diverse workforce, dei measures and their impact, how gender, race and ethnicity impact success in the workplace.

This nationally representative survey of 5,902 U.S. workers, including 4,744 who are not self-employed, was conducted Feb. 6-12, 2023, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . 1 The survey comes at a time when DEI efforts are facing some backlash and many major companies are laying off their DEI professionals .

Some key findings from the survey:

• Relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. About three-in-ten say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) or ages (28%). Roughly a quarter say the same about having a workplace with about an equal mix of men and women (26%) and 18% say this about a mix of employees of different sexual orientations.
• More than half of workers (54%) say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing DEI. Smaller shares say their company or organization pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), and 17% say they’re not sure. Black workers are more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI. They’re also among the most likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78% of Black workers say this), while White workers are the least likely to express this view (47%).
• Women are more likely than men to value DEI at work. About six-in-ten women (61%) say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, compared with half of men. And larger shares of women than men say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation.
• There are wide partisan differences in views of workplace DEI. Most Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers (78%) say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 30% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Democrats are also far more likely than Republicans to value different aspects of diversity. And by wide margins, higher shares of Democrats than Republicans say the policies and resources related to DEI available at their workplace have had a positive impact.
• Half of workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. About three-in-ten workers (29%) say this is somewhat important to them, and 21% say it’s not too or not at all important. A majority of workers (76% among those who do not work fully remotely) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities.
• Many say being a man or being White is an advantage where they work. The survey asked respondents whether a person’s gender, race or ethnicity makes it easier or harder to be successful where they work. Shares ranging from 45% to 57% say these traits make it neither easier nor harder. But far more say being a man and being White makes it easier than say it makes it harder for someone to be successful. Conversely, by double-digit margins, more say being a woman, being Black or being Hispanic makes it harder than say it makes it easier to be successful where they work.

A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.

Half or more of both men and women say focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing, but women are more likely than men to offer this view (61% vs. 50%). In turn, men are more than twice as likely as women to say it is a bad thing (23% vs. 9%).

About two-thirds or more of Black (78%), Asian (72%) and Hispanic (65%) workers say that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Among White workers, however, fewer than half (47%) say it’s a good thing; in fact, 21% say it’s a bad thing. But there are wide partisan, gender and age gaps among White workers, with majorities of White Democrats, women and those under age 30 saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing.

Workers under 30 are the most likely age group to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. About two-thirds (68%) of workers ages 18 to 29 say this, compared with 56% of workers 30 to 49, 46% of those 50 to 64, and 52% of those 65 and older.

Views also differ by educational attainment, with 68% of workers with a postgraduate degree saying focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, compared with 59% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 50% of those with some college or less education.

Democratic and Democratic-leaning workers are much more likely to say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing (78%) than to say it is a bad thing (4%) or that it is neither good nor bad (18%). Views among Republican and Republican-leaning workers are more mixed: Some 30% say focusing on DEI at work is a good thing, while the same share (30%) say it’s a bad thing, and 39% say it’s neither good nor bad.

A majority of workers say their employer pays the right amount of attention to DEI

When it comes to the focus of their own employer, 54% of workers say their company or organization pays about the right amount of attention to increasing diversity, equity and inclusion. The remainder are divided between saying their employer pays too much (14%) or too little attention (15%), or that they’re not sure (17%).

Women are more likely than men to say their employer pays too little attention to increasing DEI (17% vs. 12%). In turn, men are more likely than women to say too much attention is paid to this where they work (18% vs. 10%).

Black workers (28%) are the most likely to say their company or organization pays too little attention to increasing DEI, compared with smaller shares of White (11%), Hispanic (19%) and Asian (17%) workers who say the same.

Views on this question also differ by party. While half or more of both Republican and Democratic workers say their company or organization pays the right amount of attention to DEI, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their employer pays too little attention to it (21% vs. 7%). In turn, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their employer pays too much attention to DEI (24% vs. 6%).

While a majority of workers say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is a good thing, relatively small shares place great importance on working at a place that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. About three-in-ten workers say it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (32%) and ages (28%), while 26% say the same about having about an equal mix of men and women. And 18% say this about having a mix of employees of different sexual orientations at their workplace.

Women are more likely than men to say it’s extremely or very important to them to work at a place that is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, there are 11 percentage point differences in the shares of women compared with men saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (37% vs. 26%) and about an equal mix of men and women (31% vs. 20%).

Black workers are among the most likely to value racial, ethnic and age diversity in the workplace. Some 53% of Black workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities, compared with 39% of Hispanic workers and 25% of White workers who say the same; 43% of Asian workers say this is important to them. (There is no statistically significant difference between the share of Asian workers and the shares of Black and Hispanic workers who hold this view.) And while 42% of Black workers highly value working somewhere with a mix of employees of different ages, smaller shares of Hispanic (33%), Asian (30%) and White (24%) workers say the same.

When it comes to diversity of sexual orientation, 28% of Black workers and 22% of Hispanic workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is diverse in this way; 15% each among White and Asian workers say the same.

Workers under age 50 are more likely than those 50 and older to say racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace is extremely or very important to them (35% vs. 26%). Workers younger than 50 are also more likely to say having about an equal mix of men and women is important to them, with workers ages 18 t0 29 the most likely to say this (34% vs. 26% of workers 30 to 49, and 20% each among those 50 to 64 and 65 and older).

There are also differences by educational attainment, with larger shares of workers with a postgraduate degree than those with less education saying it’s extremely or very important to them that their workplace is diverse across all measures asked about in the survey. For example, 44% of workers with a postgraduate degree say having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities is extremely or very important to them, compared with 34% of those with a bachelor’s degree only and 27% of those with some college or less.

Democratic workers are much more likely than Republican workers to say working somewhere that is diverse when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation is extremely or very important to them. In fact, about half of Democrats (49%) place great importance on having a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities where they work, compared with 13% of Republicans. And there are differences of at least 20 points between the shares of Democrats and Republicans saying it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that has about an equal mix of men and women (39% of Democrats say this vs. 12% of Republicans) and a mix of employees of different ages (39% vs. 17%) and sexual orientations (27% vs. 7%).

Overall, a majority of workers say their workplace has a mix of employees of different ages (58% say this describes their current workplace extremely or very well). Smaller shares say their workplace has about an equal mix of men and women (38%) and a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities (46%) and sexual orientations (28%). These assessments do not vary much across demographic groups.

Half of workers place great importance on working at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities

Half of workers say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 29% say it is somewhat important and 21% say it is not too or not at all important to them.

Highly valuing an accessible workplace varies by gender, race and ethnicity, and party, but there is no significant difference in responses between those who do and don’t report having a disability.

About six-in-ten women (58%) say it is extremely or very important to them that their workplace is accessible, compared with 41% of men.

Black workers are more likely than workers of other racial and ethnic groups to place great importance on their workplace being accessible: 62% of Black workers say this is extremely or very important, compared with 51% of Hispanic, 48% of White and 43% of Asian workers.

A majority of Democrats (59%) say it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities; 40% of Republican say the same. Some 27% of Republicans say this is not too or not at all important to them, compared with 15% of Democrats.

There is no statistically significant difference in the shares of workers who have a disability and those who do not saying it is extremely or very important to them to work somewhere that is accessible for people with physical disabilities. But workers who do not have a disability are more likely than those who do to say this is not too or not at all important to them (21% vs. 15%).

Among those who don’t work fully remotely, about three-quarters of workers (76%) say their workplace is at least somewhat accessible for people with physical disabilities, with 51% saying it is extremely or very accessible. Some 17% say their workplace is not too or not at all accessible, and 8% are not sure.

When asked whether the company or organization they work for has a series of measures that are typically associated with diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, a majority of workers say their employer has policies that ensure everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions (61%), and 52% say there are trainings or meetings on DEI where they work.

Smaller shares say their workplace has a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work (33%), a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions (30%), and groups created by employees sometimes known as affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) based on shared identities such as gender, race or being a parent (26%).

Responses do not vary much by most demographic characteristics. However, workers with at least a bachelor’s degree are consistently more likely than those with less education to say each of these five measures is available where they work.

Workers tend to see positive impact from policies and resources associated with DEI where they work

Among those whose workplace offers each policy or resource, a majority of workers say each measure has had a somewhat or very positive impact where they work. About a third or fewer workers say each resource has had neither a positive nor negative impact, and about one-in-ten or fewer say each of these has had a somewhat or very negative impact.

Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say their workplace has these measures in place, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the impact of each has been positive by margins ranging from 10 to 32 points (among those who say their workplace has these measures). For example, 66% of Democrats who say their workplace has a way for employees to see the salary range for all positions say this has had a somewhat or very positive impact, compared with 56% of Republicans who say this. And while about three-quarters of Democrats (74%) say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had a positive impact, fewer than half of Republicans (42%) say the same.

Women are more likely than men to say each of these policies and resources has had a very or somewhat positive impact where they work. This is mainly driven by gender differences among Republicans: There are double-digit differences in the shares of Republican women and Republican men who say many of these resources have had a positive impact. For example, 58% of Republican women say having a staff member whose main job is to promote DEI at work has had at least a somewhat positive impact where they work, compared with 31% of Republican men who hold this view. The same share of Republican women (58%) say having affinity groups or ERGs has had a positive impact, compared with 38% of Republican men who say the same.

Among Democrats, majorities of both men and women offer positive assessments of these resources in their workplace, but Democratic women are more likely than Democratic men to say having trainings or meetings on DEI at work have had a positive impact (72% vs. 65%).

While there are differences by race, ethnicity and age on overall attitudes about DEI in the workplace, there are no consistent differences along these dimensions in how workers with access to these policies and resources at their workplace assess their impact.

About half of workers who have participated in DEI trainings in the last year say they’ve been helpful

Out of all workers, about four-in-ten (38%) have participated in a DEI training in the last year. A similar share (40%) did not participate or say their workplace does not offer these trainings, and 21% are not sure if their employer offers these trainings.

Looking only at those whose company or organization has trainings or meetings on DEI, about three-quarters (73%) say they have participated in such trainings in the past year. And assessments of these trainings tend to be positive, with 53% of workers who’ve participated saying they were very or somewhat helpful. About a third (34%) give a more neutral assessment, saying the trainings were neither helpful nor unhelpful, and 13% say they were very or somewhat unhelpful.

While men and women are about equally likely to have participated in trainings on DEI in the past year, women are more likely than men to say the trainings have been at least somewhat helpful (60% vs. 46%).

Republicans and Democrats are also equally likely to say they’ve participated in these trainings in the past year, but Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the trainings have been helpful (66% vs. 36%). About one-in-five Republicans say they’ve been unhelpful (19%), compared with 9% of Democrats.

While both Democratic men and women offer similar assessments of the DEI trainings they’ve participated in, there are gender differences among Republican workers. Republican women are more likely than Republican men to say the trainings they’ve participated in have been helpful (47% vs. 28%). Conversely, 22% of Republican men, compared with 14% of Republican women, say the trainings have been unhelpful.

Few workers are members of affinity groups or ERGs at work

While 26% of workers say there are affinity groups or employee resource groups (ERGs) where they work, members of these groups account for a very small share of workers overall. Just 6% of workers say they are members of an affinity group or ERG, with 58% of workers saying these groups are either not available at their workplace or that they aren’t a member. Another 37% say they are not sure if their workplace offers these groups.

When asked about the impact a person’s gender, race or ethnicity has on their ability to succeed at work, workers tend to say these characteristics neither make it easier nor harder to be successful at their workplace.

Still, when it comes to gender, workers are more likely to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work than to say it makes it harder (36% vs. 6%). In contrast, a larger share says being a woman makes it harder to be successful than say it makes it easier (28% vs. 11%).

Men and women have different views on the impact gender has on a person’s ability to succeed where they work. Some 44% of women say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful, including 24% who say it makes it a lot easier. This compares with 29% of men who say being a man makes it at least a little easier to be successful.

Similarly, 34% of women say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work, compared with 21% of men.

Women under age 50 are especially likely – more so than women ages 50 and older or men in either age group – to say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work and that being a woman makes it harder. For example, 38% of women ages 18 to 49 say being a woman makes it harder to be successful where they work. This compares with 29% of women 50 and older, 25% of men younger than 50, and an even smaller share of men 50 and older (13%).

When it comes to views about how race or ethnicity affects people’s ability to succeed at work, 51% of Black workers say being Black makes it harder to be successful where they work. This is significantly higher than the shares of Asian (41%), Hispanic (23%) and White (18%) workers who say the same about the impact of being Black.

Similarly, about four-in-ten Asian workers (39%) say being Asian makes it harder to be successful in their workplace, a higher share than workers of other racial and ethnic groups who say the same about being Asian.

Hispanic, Black and Asian workers are about equally likely to say being Hispanic makes it harder to be successful where they work. A smaller share of White workers say the same about being Hispanic.

When asked about the impact of being White in their workplace, workers across racial and ethnic groups are more likely to say it makes it easier than to say it makes it harder to be successful. This is especially the case among Black and Asian workers. About half of Black (52%) and Asian (51%) workers say being White makes it easier to be successful where they work, compared with 37% of Hispanic and 24% of White workers who say the same about being White.

Previously released findings from this survey found that Black workers are more likely than White, Hispanic and Asian workers to report that they have experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotions because of their race or ethnicity at some point in their careers (though not necessarily where they currently work). Women are also more likely than men to say they’ve experienced such discrimination because of their gender.

There are large partisan gaps in views of whether gender, race or ethnicity make it easier or harder to be successful at work. Some 47% of Democratic workers say being a man makes it at least somewhat easier to be successful at their workplace, compared with 25% of Republican workers. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say being a woman makes it harder to succeed (37% vs. 17%).

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say being a woman makes it harder – and being a man makes it easier – to be successful where they work. The differences between Republican women and Republican men are particularly striking. About a quarter of Republican women (26%) say being a woman makes it harder to be successful, compared with 10% of Republican men. And while 36% of Republican women say being a man makes it easier to be successful where they work, just 16% of Republican men say the same.

Democratic workers are more than three times as likely as Republican workers to say being White makes it easier to succeed where they work (48% vs. 13%), and they are also more likely than Republicans to say being Black, Hispanic or Asian makes it harder. About four-in-ten Democrats (39%) say being Black makes it harder for someone to succeed at their workplace, compared with just 9% of Republicans. Similarly, 30% of Democrats say being Hispanic makes it harder to succeed, compared with 8% of Republicans. And while smaller shares in both parties say being Asian makes it harder to succeed, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say this (16% vs. 6%). These partisan differences remain when looking only at Democrats and Republicans who are White.

• For details, see the  Methodology  section of the report. The analysis in this report is based on U.S. workers who are employed full time or part time, who are not self-employed, and who have only one job or have multiple jobs but consider one their primary job (99% of workers who are not self-employed have one job or a primary job). Additionally, the analysis is restricted to workers at companies or organizations with at least 10 employees as certain federal requirements such as non-discrimination mandates apply to larger workplaces. ↩
• Non-White adults include Black, Hispanic, Asian and other races besides White, as well as people who identify as more than one race. The sample sizes among Black, Hispanic and Asian workers who have affinity groups or ERGs at work are too small to analyze separately. ↩

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, about a third of u.s. workers who can work from home now do so all the time, how americans view their jobs, the enduring grip of the gender pay gap, for today’s young workers in the u.s., job tenure is similar to that of young workers in the past, majority of u.s. workers changing jobs are seeing real wage gains, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Mol Biol Cell
• v.31(25); 2020 Dec 1

Diversity through equity and inclusion: The responsibility belongs to all of us

James A. Olzmann

a Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology, and the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, and Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA 94158

Despite the recognized benefits of diversity and the decades of programs targeted at increasing diversity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine, the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups continues due to persisting systemic inequalities. It is imperative that we reassess our current recruitment strategies and reimagine our campus and workplace environments to provide an inclusive and equitable culture that is free of institutional barriers, affording equal opportunities for each individual to succeed, thrive, and be their whole self. For too long this vision has been the fight of a heroic few, but it must become the fight of all in order to achieve true change. I am working toward, and look forward to, a future where contributing to diversity, equity, and inclusion is fully integrated into the core mission of our institutions and is an expectation for all of us.

“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” —Audre Lorde

I am honored and grateful to receive the Günter Blobel Early Career Award from the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). As a graduate student, I was fortunate enough to receive a travel award through the ASCB Minorities Affairs Committee that allowed me to attend the 2005 ASCB annual meeting. I recall my first meeting as both a daunting and exhilarating experience, and I excitedly attended talks from my science heroes. Over the years, the excitement of the annual meeting has never faded for me, and it now feels much like a reunion of friends and colleagues. I have also come to appreciate that ASCB is much more than just the annual meeting—it is a community of amazing cell biologists and it is our community! Everything has come full circle and I am privileged to be a member of the ASCB Minorities Affairs Committee, striving to pay it forward to students from diverse backgrounds and to cultivate an inclusive community where we all feel that we belong and are welcomed.

During a typical year, I would take this opportunity to discuss my path to become a cell biologist and how I became fascinated by lipid droplets, offer some tips for success in science and research, and perhaps wax poetic about the power of collaboration and mentorship. However, I think we can all agree that 2020 is not a typical year. Our world continues to reel from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and we are in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement, the fire for this an anti-racism revolution rekindled by the needless and heartbreaking deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others. These events, which are just the most recent examples of all too common racially motivated violence, shine a light on our reality born out of a legacy of racism that permeates all aspects of our society. It is an understatement to say that our scientific community is not exempt from these systemic injustices, biases, and inequalities. To gain some small insight into the scope of the problem, we only need to look towards the #blackintheivory and #blackinivory hashtags on Twitter and recently published stories ( Simmons, 2020 ) that chronicle the lived experiences of our black colleagues—the microaggressions, implicit and explicit bias, tokenism, etc. It is with these current events as the backdrop that I focus this essay on the need for systemic change and the importance of achieving diversity through equity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM).

WHAT IS DIVERSITY AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT IT?

Diversity refers to differences within a group ( Gibbs, 2014 ), which can include, but are not limited to, differences in race, ethnicity, disability, nationality, socioeconomic stratum, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Numerous studies agree that historically excluded and marginalized groups such as Blacks/African Americans, Latinx, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, women, and persons with disabilities continue to be underrepresented in STEMM ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019 ; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019 ). For example, in 2017, in the fields of science and engineering, women received 41% of research doctorates despite composing 51.5% of the population, and persons excluded because of their ethnicity or race (PEERs) received 11% of research doctorates despite composing 27% of the population ( National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019 ; Asai, 2020 ). Furthermore, there continues to be a lack of diversity in departmental faculty, editorial and scientific advisory boards, academic and industry leadership positions, award recipients, conference speaker lists, and the list goes on.

Why is diversity important? A common argument for diversity is a business model, that a variety of opinions and perspectives leads to more creative problem-solving and innovation ( National Institutes of Health, 2019 ). In addition, due to the changing demographics in the United States and the increase in historically excluded groups, diversity enables a field to better utilize the full talent pool. Perhaps this is the most compelling argument for some audiences, particularly those driven by achieving maximum market success. However, the moral argument is just as important, and it is often not given adequate weight. We should not simply value the increase in success brought by diversity, we should value an equitable and just system that provides equal access to opportunities, recognizes talent is distributed across all groups independent of identity, and acknowledges each of us are human beings deserving of dignity.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION: SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

Despite decades of programs aimed at increasing diversity, underrepresentation and exclusion remain issues at all levels of academia ( Gibbs et al. , 2016 ; NIH, 2019 ). Excuses are easy to find, and often assumptions that have been thoroughly debunked are raised as explanations for exclusion, such as that there are insufficient numbers of qualified candidates or that PEERs have less interest in scientific research ( Poodry and Asai, 2018 ). These excuses avoid blame and are the easy way out. The path that scientists from well-represented groups and in positions of power must take is difficult because it requires facing the reality of why underrepresentation persists, acknowledging biases and contributing to a system that perpetuates inequities, and implementing innovative solutions to overcome the problem. The problem is not insurmountable, but it requires making a choice to do the work required to solve it.

Although the rate of progress continues to be glacial, there have been increases in representation of historically excluded groups at the bachelor’s and doctoral degree levels. We should celebrate these hard-won successes! Some of these successes are due to terrific programs directed at the recruitment and persistence of students at the undergraduate level ( Estrada et al. , 2016 ), such as the University of California (UC) Berkeley Biology Scholars program ( Matsui, 2018 ), the University of Maryland Baltimore Meyerhoff Scholars program ( Maton et al. , 2016 ), and the Louisiana State University hierarchical mentoring program ( Wilson et al. , 2012 ). Successful programs such as these should be valued, provided with long-term financial support by the campus instead of unpredictable extramural sources, and used as models for the construction of similar programs at other universities ( Sto Domingo et al. , 2019 ). Widespread undergraduate summer research programs have also been successful in providing research experiences to students from diverse backgrounds ( Lopatto, 2004 , 2007 ; Seymour et al. , 2004 ; Ghee et al. , 2016 ), but it is important to emphasize that these programs are not a substitute for addressing institutional barriers and for building an inclusive culture. Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and high-Hispanic-enrollment institutions (HHEs) continue to play vital roles, training a large portion of Black or African American, Hispanic, and Latinx students who go on to doctoral training in science and engineering fields ( National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019 ). The much-needed evolution of graduate program admissions strategies to be equitable and inclusive may also lead to increases in the recruitment of students from diverse backgrounds. For example, the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is a standardized test widely employed by universities in the United States for graduate admissions, despite data indicating that it is a poor predictor of success in graduate school and is a barrier to the admission of historically excluded groups, particularly when cutoff scores for admission are employed ( Miller and Stassun, 2014 ; Petersen et al. , 2018 ). Many graduate programs have removed the GRE from the criteria considered for admission, and some of these programs can be found on Twitter by searching for #GRExit and #GREexit hashtags. Instead of an overreliance on standardized tests with poor predictive value, we need to implement holistic assessments that examine both academic aptitude and other competencies that are central to success as a scientist, such as perseverance, adaptability, creativity, and potential. Grades and test scores are never a determining factor when I recruit new members to my lab, and I have argued against the undue weight given to these criteria in admission to graduate programs. I find that a passion for science and “distance traveled” conveyed through personal statements and conversations are much better predictors of success as a scientist. This hiring strategy has allowed me to recruit an amazing and diverse group of scientists from all walks of life, and I could not be prouder of the members of my lab and their accomplishments.

While representation has increased at the bachelor’s and doctoral degree levels (though clearly not enough), we have largely failed to increase the representation of historically excluded groups within the professoriate and within independent NIH-funded investigators ( Heggeness et al. , 2016 ; Li and Koedel, 2017 ; Meyers et al. , 2018 ; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2019 ). Why is this? Controlling for many factors, recent studies find that programs and policies focused primarily on increasing the supply of talented PEERs (i.e., increasing the “pipeline”) will not make an adequate impact on diversity at the faculty level ( Gibbs et al. , 2014 , 2016 ). In addition, while PEERs exhibit higher contributions to scientific novelty, their contributions are more likely to be discounted and less likely to lead to faculty positions ( Hofstra et al. , 2020 ). These studies highlight the importance of examining discriminatory institutional barriers (e.g., research evaluation and hiring practices) and addressing inclusive and equitable cultures (or the lack thereof) that exert differential pressures on social identity, career selection, and persistence. I am excited to see the recent emergence of several innovative programs to improve diversity at the faculty level. Some examples include the Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) (K99/R00 and UE5) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Hanna Gray Fellowship programs. Not only do these awards provide financial support during postdoctoral training and the initial years as independent faculty, but they also offer opportunities for training and development of professional skills that are imperative to the success of early faculty. The MOSAIC UE5 program also provides support to organizations (e.g., the ASCB) that impart mentorship, networking, and training to the MOSAIC K99/R00 scholars, and requires investigators and administrators from the scholars’ home institutions to engage in mentoring/diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training and planning for systemic change at their universities. Thus, these programs aim to move beyond the deficit-based, “fix the victim” model and impart systemic change in institutional culture and policies. The impact that these programs will have on representation of historically excluded groups within the professoriate remains to be seen, but I am encouraged by these efforts.

We may not all be able to participate in these recruitment and retention programs, but those of us already in hiring positions can immediately assess our current approaches to faculty hiring and make changes to embrace best-in-practice methods that facilitate the equitable recruitment of scientists from diverse backgrounds ( Bhalla, 2019 ). Some key improvements in faculty recruitment strategies include using active advertising approaches such as soliciting applications directly from PEER scientists, requiring and valuing DEI statements, using rubrics, and employing broad recruitments and cluster hires ( Bhalla, 2019 ). I applaud departments that recognize the problem and are experimenting with new strategies to reduce bias in recruitment and to increase equity and diversity. At UC Berkeley, a recent life science cluster search heralded changes to how faculty searches are performed and put excellence in DEI on par with excellence in research, based upon the understanding that the two are not mutually exclusive and both are essential to the campus community. Search committee members evaluated each candidate’s understanding of the issues, record of engagement, and plans for advancing DEI as a faculty member and a portion of the chalk talk during the on-campus interview was used to discuss the candidate’s plans to contribute to DEI efforts.

Critical to the success of these recruitment efforts to diversifying the student body and professoriate is the retention and support of recruited individuals ( Bhalla, 2019 ; Termini and Pang, 2020 ). For example, the transition to faculty as well as tenure and promotion remain major barriers. Transparency in the tenure process and faculty mentoring committees are one way to help support faculty in navigating this challenging and often convoluted process. It should also be taken into consideration that faculty from historically excluded groups face bias in teaching evaluations as well as publication and funding success ( Heggeness et al. , 2016 ; Helmer et al. , 2017 ; Kuehn, 2017 ; Fan et al. , 2019 ; Peterson et al. , 2019 ; Witteman et al. , 2019 ). In addition, care must be taken to not overburden faculty members. Often in an effort to achieve diversity, historically excluded individuals are called upon for a higher amount of service than other faculty members. Expectations for service should be equivalent. If faculty are contributing at a higher level to DEI efforts, this should be valued and their contribution to other aspects of service and teaching adjusted, though not at the expense of opportunities critical to advancement. Some institutions, such as Pomona College and UC Los Angeles, are leading the way in formalizing tenure and promotion requirements that include evaluation of contributions to DEI in teaching, scholarship, and service ( Jaschik, 2016 ; UCLA, 2019 ). This is certainly an exception. When I was hired, I was told that “you can be the best teacher in the world, but that is not going to get you tenure,” clearly establishing research as the sole priority. I agree that research excellence is absolutely required, but I do not think that this needs to be mutually exclusive with excellence in DEI and teaching. Our institutions have a long way to go to achieve an inclusive environment, and it will not happen without education and work.

WHAT CAN WE DO AND HOW CAN WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ACKNOWLEDGE, LISTEN, EDUCATE, ACT

Recent events have again shone a light upon the ugly truth of racism that permeates our society, but there is genuine interest from our colleagues and students who want to get involved and make an impact. This is a critical time to have conversations on how best to harness this energy to achieve maximal results. For all of us, it is important to acknowledge the problem of exclusion, to listen to a wide range of voices in our field (e.g., the new “Voices” series of essays in Molecular Biology of the Cell; Welch, 2020 ), to educate ourselves, and to participate in ongoing efforts to promote DEI. Let’s move beyond the often empty pledges on social media, and make the effort to cultivate real change in our communities. Some actions that we can take are as follows:

• Seek out training and education about DEI. Learn about microaggressions, microaffirmations, stereotype threat, imposter syndrome, tokenism, and cultural competency in teaching and mentorship. There may be opportunities to gain such training on campus through campus divisions of equity and inclusion, ASCB Minorities Affairs Committee programs, workshops, and presentations ( Segarra et al. , 2017 , 2020 ), and diversity-focused conferences, such as SACNAS and ABRCMS.
• Require annual training in aspects of inclusion, belonging, diversity, and cultural awareness for all faculty.
• Promote and amplify individuals from historically excluded groups by inviting them to speak during seminar series and conferences and by nominating them for awards.
• Ensure that there is diversity in panels, committees, seminars, conferences, editorial boards, and leadership positions.
• Demand that university leadership value DEI efforts with program funding and as part of the appointment and promotion criteria for all faculty.
• Get involved in existing programs on campus and contribute to the development of new programs. Learn about the programs that have succeeded on other campuses and adopt successful paradigms.
• Have conversations about DEI. If possible, participate in moderated workshops on DEI that question our assumptions and force creative thought regarding new solutions.
• Involve students in decision making and value their opinions. There is often more diversity at the student level than at the faculty level.
• Employ evolving best-in-practice procedures for recruitment and retention of students, staff, and faculty.
• Redefine what excellence and merit mean for students and faculty to include contributions to DEI.
• Enact new, evidence-based, sustainable approaches to improve DEI that have measurable outcomes that can be assessed and improved upon over time. Do not be afraid to make changes and do not be paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake.
• Promote and embrace inclusive teaching methods, such as including readings and discussions of discoveries by scientists from historically excluded groups.

FINAL PERSPECTIVE

I would like to end on a hopeful note. Current events provide momentum to an ongoing movement to make systemic changes to achieve diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. I am heartened by the amazing and tireless individuals at the forefront of this fight against systemic inequalities and racism. I am also encouraged by the progress that has been made. As a biracial American born to first-generation parents of Filipino and German ancestry, I can look back and see that not so long ago there were states where it would have been illegal for my parents to be married. That was changed just over 50 years ago by Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that state laws forbidding interracial marriage were unconstitutional. We should remember our history and keep fighting for the equitable and just future that we deserve. For too long this has been the fight of a few; it must now become the fight of all of us.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my many mentors over the years, both formal and informal. A special thank you to my postdoctoral mentor, Ron Kopito, for all of his continued support. I am truly grateful for the amazing colleagues at UC Berkeley, especially the terrific members of my lab. You support me and push me to be the best version of myself. Thank you to Michael Boyce, Stephanie Carlson, Milton To, Aaron Streets, Matthew Olzmann, and Elena Olzmann for discussion and critical reading of this perspective essay. A shout-out to my fellow members of the ASCB Minorities Affairs Committee and all the members of the cell biology community who are fighting for representation, equity, inclusion, and justice. You know who you are, and I appreciate you and what you do!

Abbreviations used:

DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E20-09-0575 . Mol Biol Cell 31, 2757–2760.

• Asai DJ (2020). Race matters . Cell , 754–757. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhalla N (2019). Strategies to improve equity in faculty hiring . Mol Biol Cell , 2744–2749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Estrada M, Burnett M, Campbell AG, Campbell PB, Denetclaw WF, Gutiérrez CG, Hurtado S, John GH, Matsui J, McGee R, et al (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM . CBE Life Sci Educ , es5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y, Shepherd LJ, Slavich E, Waters D, Stone M, Abel R, Johnston EL (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: why representation matters . PLoS One , e0209749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee M, Keels M, Collins D, Neal-Spence C, Baker E (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE Life Sci Educ . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs K (2014). Diversity in STEM: what it is and why it matters . Sci Am . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs KD, Basson J, Xierali IM, Broniatowski DA (2016). Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US . Elife . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbs KD, McGready J, Bennett JC, Griffin K (2014). Biomedical science Ph.D. career interest patterns by race/ethnicity and gender . PLoS One , e114736. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heggeness ML, Evans L, Pohlhaus JR, Mills SL (2016). Measuring diversity of the National Institutes of Health-funded workforce . Acad Med , 1164–1172. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review . Elife . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA (2020). The diversity–innovation paradox in science . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA , 9284–9291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaschik S (2016). Pomona moves to make diversity commitment a tenure requirement .
• Kuehn BM (2017). Rooting out bias . Elife . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li D, Koedel C (2017). Representation and salary gaps by race–ethnicity and gender at selective public universities . Educ Res , 343–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto D (2004). Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): first findings . Cell Biol Educ , 270–277. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopatto D (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning . CBE Life Sci Educ , 297–306. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maton KI, Beason TS, Godsay S, Sto Domingo MR, Bailey TC, Sun S, Hrabowski FA (2016). Outcomes and processes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program: STEM PhD completion, sense of dommunity, perceived program benefit, science identity, and research self-efficacy . CBE Life Sci Educ . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsui JT (2018). “Outsiders at the table”—diversity lessons from the Biology Scholars Program at the University of California, Berkeley . CBE Life Sci Educ , es11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, Chalkley R (2018). Survey of checkpoints along the pathway to diverse biomedical research faculty . PLoS One , e0190606. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller C, Stassun K (2014). A test that fails . Nature , 303–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The science of effective mentorship in STEMM . Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: special report NSF .
• National Institutes of Health. (2019). Notice of NIH’s interest in diversity .
• NIH (2019). PAR-19-342: maximizing opportunities for scientific and academic independent careers (MOSAIC) institutionally-focused research education award to promote diversity .
• Petersen SL, Erenrich ES, Levine DL, Vigoreaux J, Gile K (2018). Multi-institutional study of GRE scores as predictors of STEM PhD degree completion: GRE gets a low mark . PLoS One , e0206570. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson DAM, Biederman LA, Andersen D, Ditonto TM, Roe K (2019). Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching . PLoS One , e0216241. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poodry CA, Asai DJ (2018). Questioning assumptions . CBE Life Sci Educ , es7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Segarra VA, Blatch S, Boyce M, Carrero-Martinez F, Aguilera RJ, Leibowitz MJ, Zavala M, Hammonds-Odie L, Edwards A (2020). Scientific societies advancing STEM workforce diversity: lessons and outcomes from the minorities affairs committee of the American Society for Cell Biology . J Microbiol Biol Educ . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Segarra VA, Carrero-Martínez F, Shugart E (2017). The Minorities Affairs Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology—fostering the professional development of scientists from underrepresented minority backgrounds . CBE Life Sci Educ . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour E, Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study . Sci Educ , 493–534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simmons GE (2020). Pedagogy of the black academic . Mol Biol Cell , 2423–2424. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sto Domingo MR, Sharp S, Freeman A, Freeman T, Harmon K, Wiggs M, Sathy V, Panter AT, Oseguera L, Sun S, et al (2019). Replicating Meyerhoff for inclusive excellence in STEM . Science , 335–337. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Termini CM, Pang A (2020). Beyond the bench: how inclusion and exclusion make us the scientists we are . Mol Biol Cell , 2164–2167. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UCLA (2019). The UCLA CALL Appendix 41: contributions to equity, diversity, and inclusion. UCLA Academic Personnel Office .
• Welch MD (2020). Introducing MBoC voices . Mol Biol Cell , 2157–2157. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson ZS, Holmes L, deGravelles K, Sylvain MR, Batiste L, Johnson M, McGuire SY, Pang SS, Warner IM (2012). Hierarchical mentoring: a transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM disciplines . J Sci Educ Technol , 148–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? a natural experiment at a national funding agency . Lancet , 531–540. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Future of Work pp 97–109 Cite as

Diversity and Inclusion

• Jean McCarthy 7 ,
• Janine Bosak 8 ,
• Jeanette N. Cleveland 9 &
• Emma Parry 10  
• Open Access
• First Online: 30 July 2023

2228 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies ((PSDBET))

The composition of the workforce, the pool of potential job applicants, and the diversity of the workplace are changing. In this chapter, we focus on the future of workplace diversity and inclusion of human workers, as well as how diversity and inclusion are likely to be affected by developments in technology (e.g., artificial intelligence and non-human presence at work). We argue that these technological developments are likely to have an impact on how organisations react to the increasing diversity of the workforce, and that they have the potential to either enhance or impede diversity and inclusion. We consider the implications of increasing diversity for organisations, such as changes to legal and economic structures, reimagining work-family balance and working time, the use of technology in reducing bias and, importantly, a focus on organisational cultures and individual attitudes that might promote a more diverse, inclusive and, indeed, sustainable workplace in the years ahead.

• Stereotypes
• Decision-making
• Social roles
• Organisational culture

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

7.1 Introduction

Workplace diversity suggests that employees and managers, as well as suppliers, clients and customers, are different in several ways, including, inter alia , their gender, race, age, ethnicity, health, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, language, religion, caring responsibilities, education and previous career experience. The composition of the workforce, the pool of potential job applicants and the diversity of the workplace are changing. In the last two years, the Covid-19 pandemic has reduced the participation of both older workers and women in the workforce (Stevenson, 2021 ), but longer-term trends suggest that the workforce will become increasingly diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, culture, nationality and language. At the same time, technological advances beyond automation, such as artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and social media, have significantly permeated both our work and non-work lives, and these changes have the potential to accelerate the diversification of the workforce. Consequently, workforces and many workplaces across the globe no longer have a dominant, traditional or homogenous pool of workers, nor do they have universal structures or approaches to work and working time.

This increasing workplace diversity has implications for many aspects of the Future of Work in organisations, starting with the way that work is organised. In particular, the combination of human and non-human interactions and job/occupational task redistributions is likely to change over time, based upon yet-to-be articulated criteria of what humans/non-human can perform best. Technological changes have significant potential to change outcomes such as organisational profits, worker health, and the nature of human-based jobs and non-human centred work, influencing the relative balance of worker and organisational influences on these outcomes (Ozkazanc-Pan, 2021 ). To develop and maintain the sustainability of organisations for human workers, organisational decision-makers need to structure work systems, practices, emerging technology and the cultures of organisations, to adapt to this changing environment.

In this chapter, we focus upon the future of workplace diversity and inclusion of human workers, as well as how diversity and inclusion are likely to be affected by developments in technology (e.g., AI and non-human presence at work). Our discussion here centres on an understanding of diversity through a multi-level lens as a strategy for moving considerations of diversity and inclusion towards a broader framework for the future. Included in this is the multi-level lens is a recognition of the increasingly important role of technology and AI at all levels of workplace diversity and inclusion.

Human and non-human diversity is a nuanced and complex topic. Our examples throughout the chapter focus largely on gender, race and age issues, since we know that people automatically evaluate other people, at least in the first instance, along these three dimensions of diversity (Nelson, 2004 ). We will argue that developments in technology are likely to have an impact on how organisations react to the increasing diversity of the workforce and that they have the potential to either enhance or impede diversity and inclusion. Finally, we consider the implications of increasing diversity for organisations, with a focus on interventions and policies that might promote a more diverse, inclusive and indeed, sustainable workplace in the years ahead. We thus expect our chapter to generate reflective and critical discussions about the future of workplace diversity and inclusion.

7.2 Human Diversity and Inclusion Through a Multi-level Lens: Individual-Group and Institutional Levels

Often, theories of bias and prejudice, as well as programmes and interventions for reducing bias at work (e.g., unconscious bias training), assume that some subset of individuals hold negative views or stereotypes about people who are different from them, and more positive views about people who they view as similar. Generalised beliefs individuals have about members of specific groups in society are usually labelled as stereotypes, and these beliefs underlie much of the past research on diversity and inclusion. Stereotypes represent a “relatively simple cognition, especially of a social group” (Krech et al., 1962 , p. 67), which is exaggerated in two important ways (Allport, 1954 ). First, all members of that group are seen as sharing a set of attributes, and second, beliefs or knowledge about these group attributes are used to make judgements about individuals. Prejudice encompasses an overall emotional feeling concerning an individual or group (Berkowitz, 2000 ), and these beliefs and feelings are thought to drive behaviours and actions towards these individuals or groups (Fazio, 1986 , 1995 ). That is, individuals express their attitudes by means of holding certain beliefs about an individual or group (stereotypes), feeling a certain way about an individual or group (prejudice) and intending to behave in a certain way towards an individual or group (discrimination).

While individual beliefs and beliefs shared among group members are an important component of bias, prejudice and discrimination, these beliefs and assumptions can become institutionalised, and their effects can continue to be felt long after the individuals whose beliefs created these institutional norms, rules, regulations and laws have passed from the scene. It is therefore useful to consider both individual-group level explanations for bias, prejudice and discrimination and institutional explanations.

Individual and Group-Level Explanations . Stereotypes reflect people’s consensual beliefs about groups of people including beliefs about the physical, personality and social characteristics of women and men, ethnic groups, age and generational groups, religions and so forth. By observing a given behaviour, an observer infers that the person possesses a given trait or characteristic. For example, one might observe a woman comforting a baby or an elderly person. An inference is made that women are nurturing and gentle. Further, these traits may be seen as stable across all members of that group with little variability: all women are nurturing or gentle. The study of group stereotypes emerged in psychology and sociological research on social role theory (Eagly, 1997 ). Social role theory has its origins in efforts to understand the perceptions of gender behaviour. Empirical findings have suggested that there is a wide variation in perceptions of gender differences and similarities across contexts (Eagly, 1987 , 1997 ), but also suggest that perceivers have complex yet relatively stable sets of beliefs and associations concerning men and women (Eagly, 1997 ; Bosak et al., 2012 ).

For example, Eagly and Steffen’s ( 1984 ) seminal work established that gender stereotypes can be explained by a consideration of women’s and men’s occupational roles. Men are often viewed in the role of “breadwinner” (or the employee of higher status), while women are often viewed in the role of homemaker (or employee of lower status). Women are therefore disproportionately represented in roles requiring communal traits, for example “concerned for the welfare of others” (Deaux & Kite, 1993 , p. 113). Men are disproportionately represented in roles requiring agentic traits, for example assertiveness (Eagly, 1997 ). Observing women and men in these occupational roles leads people to associate the characteristics of these roles with the individuals who occupy them; therefore, people conclude that women are typically communal and men are typically agentic (Eagly & Steffen, 1984 ). Further, women may be directed largely towards these jobs rather than occupations that are associated with other traits or characteristics that may be associated with men (Acker, 1990 ), creating and reinforcing occupational sex segregation of jobs. This segregation of occupations by gender, race or age reinforces other’s perceptions that some jobs are more suited for individuals based on their gender, race and age rather than based on job-related skills, knowledge or characteristics.

Individual-level explanations of bias and discrimination endure for a number of reasons. Most people can agree there are stereotypes and discrimination that can create barriers to diversity and inclusion. We can usually “see” or observe bias at an individual or even group level. For example, we might observe instances where one employee is treated differently from others, perhaps because of their gender or race. We might also track group differences in outcomes by recording decisions such as hiring, promotions or pay increases for individuals from diverse groups compared to a majority group. If we observe differences in the ways individuals or groups are treated in the workplace, we are likely to search for explanations that involve familiar concepts such as stereotypes, prejudice or discrimination. For example, when an employee habitually arrives late to virtual meetings, we may attribute this to individual factors (e.g., stereotype that person as lazy or undependable) or to group/demographic factors (e.g., stereotype that person as coming from a culture that does not place an emphasis on timeliness).

As we move to more organisational and institutional explanations, there is less agreement on discriminatory behaviours and practices as they are more difficult to clearly articulate or “see”, often because such things are accepted as “normal”. That is, we have built an entire series of institutions (e.g., legal systems, corporations) around the experience of the past several centuries, when work was largely the domain of one small subset of the population (generally, male members of the dominant racial/ethnic groups), and these institutions can often create subtle but powerful barriers to diversity and inclusion. These individual and group-level explanations for bias and discrimination are useful but insufficient; if we ignore broader societal factors, we are likely to arrive at a limited understanding of why diversity continues to be a challenge in work and organisations. One of the arguments in this chapter is that we must also consider structural and institutional factors. Returning to the example above that an individual is consistently late to virtual meetings, rather than applying a person-centred attribution or stereotype (e.g., person is lazy), it may be that this individual lives in a rural location that has slow internet connectivity. Our stereotype of laziness to the attributes of the individual (and in other instances, the attributes of groups) may mislead us if we ignore broader structural barriers to arriving on time to a virtual meeting.

Institutional-Level Explanations for Bias and Discrimination . There is a growing body of scholarship that examines phenomena such as racism and sexism (e.g., Acker, 2006 ) as a feature of organisations rather than simply the product of individual stereotypes and decisions. For example, Ray ( 2019 ) proposes that organisations are racial structures connecting organisational rules to social and material resources. Racial hierarchies in organisations enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups, legitimate the unequal distribution of resources and establish a set of norms for desired behaviours (e.g., whiteness is treated as a credential). More generally, organisations create norms and hierarchies that both put some people in advantaged positions (e.g., white middle-aged males) and that serve to justify those hierarchies by defining what is normal and expected (Acker, 1990 , 2006 ). Thus, our beliefs about and perceptions of work and workers include “[…] a host of general organisational patterns, including gendered hierarchies, the division between paid work and unpaid housework, and the distinction between production and reproduction” (Ray, 2019 , p. 32).

Diversity scholars (e.g., Davis, 1983 ) argue that many forms of racism and sexism can be best understood as ways of rationalising and naturalising existing racial and gender-based hierarchies. That is, the fact that work, especially work that involves power and status, has traditionally been the exclusive preserve of a subset of male workers, creates a norm that suggests to many that it should be the preserve of that subset and that workers from other strata of society should not strive for or occupy these positions. Still others (Bowser, 2017 ) stress that any adequate theory of racism (or sexism, ageism—authors’ addition) should include cultural, institutional and personal factors. For example, proponents of Critical Race Theory argue that racism is often embedded in and codified in social and legal structures (e.g., discriminatory practices in giving access to home ownership) that have the effect of maintaining existing racial hierarchies (George, 2021 ).

Beliefs about who should hold different types of jobs, positions or power, control over resources, etc., develop over time, and these do not necessarily require individual animus towards members of disadvantaged groups. Rather, these beliefs represent a set of assumptions about what is “normal”, and they often lag rather than lead changes in society. This does suggest, however, that over time as the workforce changes, jobs that had traditionally been seen as reserved for one group of people (often, white middle-aged males) may in the future be seen as more open to a more diverse set of individuals.

As technology starts to change the nature of work and the skills required for work, it is possible that there will be changes in the content of stereotypes and their effects on workers and organisations. Age discrimination, for example, might increase, as jobs require the use of more complex technologies. There is evidence, for example, that older workers are seen as having more difficulty learning and adjusting to new technologies (Parry & McCarthy, 2017 ). Discrimination based on ethnicity, education or race, however, might decrease as technology takes over some of the skills once required. Delivery truck drivers, for example, once were required to make decisions about their routes, the order in which to serve customers and the way their vans were loaded, but many of these decisions now reside in route-planning software, arguably lowering the skill levels required of drivers (Kaiser-Schatzlein, 2022 ).

7.3 Implications for the Future of Work

Organisations often find it difficult to provide an inclusive work environment that gives a diverse workforce an opportunity to succeed, in large part because they were often built by and for a very different (more homogeneous) workforce. Individual-level theories of prejudice and discrimination (e.g., social role theory) are useful, but it is necessary to consider how organisational norms and cultures create barriers for a diverse workforce. The criteria that have traditionally defined individual and organisational success (e.g., profit, competition, advancement) also tend to support a particular pattern of hierarchy and advantage that may have been functional when the workforce was largely homogeneous and when discrimination was broadly accepted in society. As the workforce becomes more diverse, as people, and more specifically organisational decision-makers, become more aware of detrimental discriminatory attitudes and behaviour, and as technology radically transforms the nature of work, organisations have an opportunity to rethink their definition of what represents success and what individuals should do to help organisations succeed.

7.3.1 Legal and Economic Structures

Changes in attitudes towards disadvantaged groups can be slow, especially when these attitudes are enshrined in legal and economic structures (e.g., Jim Crow laws in the southern parts of the U.S.). This suggests that it is critically important to examine legal and economic structures that may stand in the way of progress. For example, in the U.S., women were substantially more likely to leave the workforce than men during the Covid pandemic, in part because of the distribution of males and females in jobs directly affected by the pandemic and in part because of the collapse of the childcare industry, itself mainly staffed by women (Stevenson, 2021 ). The differences in the experiences of male and female workers are in part related to perceptions of sex roles, but it is more broadly related to large-scale economic factors that are sometimes correlated with, but rarely determined solely by, role perceptions.

For example, with the growth of information technology and AI, a new economy has emerged that rests significantly on technology and boasts flexibility and autonomy to workers and is based on short-term, temporary and contract work, on-demand work relationships with companies (e.g., Uber, GrubHub). Footnote 1 Such technology shifts at work may have a stronger impact on disadvantaged workers (e.g., women, immigrants, members of racial and ethnic minority groups), in part because of differential access to reliable technologies and in part because of their concentration in relatively low-skilled jobs are more easily automated by technology.

7.3.2 Work-Family Balance and Working Time

The digital transformation and the fourth industrial revolution also require a work transformation for an increasingly digital economy and work environment, including a need for more agile work models—with radical shifts in when and where we work, which have been accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis (OECD, 2021 ). New working time patterns that embrace flexibility might be seen as more female-friendly (Howcroft & Rubery, 2019 ) because women might like to work flexibly and at home (Denham, 2018 ). However, the emerging work models also bear certain risks with, for example fragmented or discontinuous time leading to increased work intensity during paid hours (Rubery et al., 2015 ) or remote working contributing to work intensification (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010 ) and blurred boundaries between work, family and personal time (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012 ). Further the argument is made that flexible working might help women better manage the “double burden” of paid work and unpaid work at home (McKinsey Global Institute, 2019 )—which however might further reinforce gender inequalities rather than reduce them.

7.3.3 Reducing Bias with Technology

Given the prevalence of stereotypes and their continuing influence in current societies, it appears critical to ensure that bias is not being built into technologies and systems, old and new, during the production stages—“reflecting the prejudices and blind spots of their creators and often reinforcing damaging societal norms” (Jivani, 2020 , p. 139). Although digital platforms might make it easier for women to successfully navigate cultural barriers present in some countries in the formal economy (OECD, 2017 ), there are also examples of biased data going into systems, thus encoding the history of gender bias within digital platforms (Wajcman, 2018 ). A good example of this was Amazon’s AI recruitment system which learned to downgrade resumes that mention “women” based on a decade of resume information from people applying for jobs at Amazon fed into the system.

7.3.4 Attitudes and Culture

There is a need for employers and managers to be attentive to the culture that exists in their workplace in relation to diversity and inclusion. The creation of “awareness” policies, practices and both synchronous and asynchronous training that challenge latent attitudes and prevent them from affecting discriminatory or exclusion behaviours is recommended. Astley and Cherkashyna ( 2021 ), for example, recommend the formalisation of a diversity development pipeline process in organisations encompassing mentoring and training/development support, as well as digital communication programmes, all focused on increasing minority representation—particularly female and Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME)—at the top of the organisation. It has to be communicated in practice that in an increasingly diverse society, the need to optimise the entire pool of workers has never been more critical and neither has challenging discriminatory attitudes and behaviours.

7.4 Conclusion

Technological developments now, and into the future, will have an impact on how organisations manage the increasing diversity of the workforce and the way in which work is organised. Organisations must provide an inclusive work environment that gives a diverse workforce an opportunity to succeed. To do this, it is necessary to consider how both nascent stereotypes and overt discrimination among organisational decision-makers can be reduced, and how barriers related to organisational norms and cultures can be deconstructed in the face of a new wave of employees with diverse needs, demands and values. New technologies offer many opportunities and possibilities in the reduction of decision-making bias, particularly within the many work structures, systems and practices that have so often been the cause of workplace prejudice.

See Chap. 4 for a more detailed discussion.

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4 (2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002

Article   Google Scholar  

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20 (4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Astley, M., & Cherkashyna, O. (2021). Developing Diversity Strategies using HR Analytics . Unpublished manuscript.

Berkowitz, L. (2000). Causes and consequences of feelings . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606106

Book   Google Scholar  

Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). The impact of social roles on trait judgments: A critical reexamination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (4), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427308

Bowser, B. P. (2017). Racism: Origin and theory. Journal of Black Studies, 48 (6), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934717702135

Deaux, K., & Kite, M. (1993). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 107–139). Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, race and class . Black women writers series.

Denham, A. (2018). The gig economy is the future and women can lead the charge. The Telegraph , April 11. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/business/everyone-benefiting-gig-economy-apart-women/

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation . Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1380–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behaviour? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 204–243). Guilford Press.

Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Erlbaum.

George, J. (2021). A lesson on critical race theory. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Howcroft, D., & Rubery, J. (2019). ’Bias in, Bias out’: Gender equality and the future of work debate. Labour and Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 29 (2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2019.1619986

Jivani, A. I. (2020). Gender lens to the future of work. Daedalus, 149 (1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01778

Kaiser-Schatzlein, R. (2022, March 15). How Life as a Trucker Devolved Into a Dystopian Nightmare . The New York Times.

Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63 (1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199

Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2012). Work–family boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2 (2), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611436264

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society: A textbook of social psychology . McGraw-Hill.

McKinsey Global Institute. (2019). The future of women at work: Transitions in the age of automation. Retrieved November 22, 2021, from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/the-future-of-women-at-work-transitions-in-the-age-of-automation

Nelson, T. D. (2004). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons . MIT Press.

OECD, Policy Brief. (2017). Going Digital: The Future of Work for Women. Policy Brief on the Future of Work .

OECD. (2021). Teleworking in the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and prospects . OECD. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/teleworking-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-trends-and-prospects-72a416b6/

Ozkazanc-Pan, B. (2021). Diversity and future of work: Inequality abound or opportunities for all?. Management Decision, 59 (11), 2645–2659. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2019-0244

Parry, E., & McCarthy, J. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of age diversity and work . Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/978-1-137-46781-2.pdf

Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84 (1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335

Rubery, J., Grimshaw, D., Hebson, G., & Ugarte, S. (2015). “It’s all about time”: Time as contested terrain in the management and experience of domiciliary care work in England. Human Resource Management, 54 , 753–772.

Stevenson, B. (2021). Women, work, and families: Recovering from the pandemic-induced recession, 16.

Wajcman, J. (2018). Digital technology, work extension and the acceleration society. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 32 (3–4), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002218775930

Whitehouse, G., & Brady, M. (2019). Editorial: New social inequalities and the future of work. Labour and Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 29 (3), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2019.1679422

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Jean McCarthy

DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Janine Bosak

Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Jeanette N. Cleveland

Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean McCarthy .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Irish Institute of Digital Business DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

J.E. Cairnes School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Galway, Galway, Ireland

Pierangelo Rosati

DCU Business SchoolDublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Edel Conway

Lisa van der Werff

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

McCarthy, J., Bosak, J., Cleveland, J.N., Parry, E. (2023). Diversity and Inclusion. In: Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., van der Werff, L. (eds) The Future of Work. Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31494-0_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31494-0_7

Published : 30 July 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-31493-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-31494-0

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 04 July 2022

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

• Omar Dewidar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6420-887X 1 ,
• Nour Elmestekawy 1 , 2 &
• Vivian Welch 1 , 3  

Research Integrity and Peer Review volume  7 , Article number:  4 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

24 Citations

28 Altmetric

Metrics details

There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals and of the wider scientific community. The Royal Society of Chemistry established a minimum set of requirements aimed at improving EDI in scholarly publishing. Additionally, several resources were reported to have the potential to improve EDI, but their effectiveness and feasibility are yet to be determined. In this commentary we suggest six approaches, based on the Royal Society of Chemistry set of requirements, that journals could implement to improve EDI. They are: (1) adopt a journal EDI statement with clear, actionable steps to achieve it; (2) promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language; (3) appoint a journal’s EDI director or lead; (4) establish a EDI mentoring approach; (5) monitor adherence to EDI principles; and (6) publish reports on EDI actions and achievements. We also provide examples of journals that have implemented some of these strategies, and discuss the roles of peer reviewers, authors, researchers, academic institutes, and funders in improving EDI.

Peer Review reports

Editors, reviewers, researchers, funders, and academic institutions collectively act as gatekeepers of our disciplines. Their unique positions enable ethical publication practices and the setting of rigorous research standards. Frequently, these stakeholders are tasked with making critical judgements that can help progress our fields. In some cases, these judgements may be unintentionally biased and possibly fueled by the spread of misinformation.

The academic publication process is built on objectivity [ 1 ], gender and socio-cultural neutrality [ 2 ], and respect for human and animal rights. Hence, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are essential in publication processes, among other academic spaces. However for the purpose of this According to the Editors Association of Canada [ 3 ], equity refers to recognizing the existence of “identity-based advantages and barriers” as well as “working to correct and address this imbalance.” They also define diversity as “increasing the presence of people of diverse identities” in the editorial process and inclusion as “creating an environment where all those with diverse identities are welcomed and valued”.

Given the ‘publish or perish’ nature of academia, the role of Journals and editors in propagating the cycle of injustice in this space is amplified [ 4 ]. There is evidence for a higher rejection rate of papers from traditionally under-represented groups [ 4 , 5 ]. These decisions can heavily impact such individuals, resulting in poorer career progression due to fewer publications and a lower chance of promotional opportunities. The obstruction of career progression contributes to the lack of representation of certain groups in positions of power and leadership: particularly women, individuals living in low-middle income countries and racialized people [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. For example, in oncology research, Caucasian men hold over 70% of editorial leadership positions [ 6 ]. Similar findings were shown in a survey of editors of the Association of College & Research Libraries [ 7 ], and Wiley publishing [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in communication journals, editorial board members from the United States are more than all other world regions pooled together [ 14 ]. It has been hypothesized that overrepresented groups may have implicit biases that stem from historical institutionalized discrimination against individuals from under-represented groups [ 15 , 16 ]. However, the evidence is conflicting. Witteman and colleagues [ 17 ] demonstrated that when controlling for age and domain of research, a gender bias exists in peer review processes that are judging the calibre of the investigator: there is a 4% lower success rate for women. Yet, a more recent large analysis of 145 journals found that the bias is non-existent [ 18 ]. In fact, women led, and co-authored articles were favoured by referees and editors [ 18 ]. Nonetheless, some studies have demonstrated that implicit bias training may lead to modifying behavior [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Thus, EDI training and other resources, such as unconscious bias [ 23 , 24 ] and indigenous cultural competency training [ 25 , 26 ], should be easily accessible and completed by the editorial teams and authors alike.

Realizing that biases exist in scholarly publishing, The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) established a joint commitment to action on EDI in scholarly publishing. In collaboration with signed partners, they formulated the following six minimum standards for inclusion and diversity in academic publishing: (1) integrate inclusion and diversity in the publishing activities and strategic planning; (2) work on understanding the demographic diversity of individuals at all levels of their publishing process; (3) acknowledge and address the barriers experienced by those who are under-represented among them; (4) define and clearly communicate diversity and inclusion responsibilities at all levels of the publishing process; (5) revise the appointment process for editors and editorial boards as needed, to widen the scope of the captured talent; (6) publicly report diversity and inclusion progress at least once a year [ 27 ]. To date, 52 publishing organizations have committed to this initiative [ 27 ].

It may be argued that editors should not be obliged to ensure that their reviewer pool is geographically distributed, and that their only concern should be recruiting reviewers who are experts of the manuscript content under consideration. However, the lack of diversity in the peer reviewer can make finding reviewers harder [ 28 ]. In addition, there are many benefits to promoting diversity in the publishing processes for the scientific community. Ensuring the representation of individuals from underrepresented populations could facilitate meaningful career growth for these individuals and increase the depth of the content published in the journal. An environment of innovation and creativity could be fostered through the presence of a greater variety of problem-solving approaches [ 4 , 29 ]. Better performance, predictions, and overall results could emerge as problem-solving improves in the presence of a diverse team [ 30 ]. It was found that a significant increase in the citation of articles occurred when the authors who wrote them were of different ethnicities and nationalities [ 30 ]. Additionally, there was an association between the 5-year citation count of published papers and the diversity of people who authored them — ethnic diversity in particular [ 31 ]. For example, when a mandate was instituted in Japan by the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University to ensure 50% of all researchers were from other than Japan, the institute saw an increase in academic ranking based on their research output [ 32 ].

Although commitments are in place to improve EDI in journals and publishing [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ], the effectiveness of these approaches are yet to be determined. We also acknowledge that editor of this journal shared concerns for practical approaches to improving EDI in peer review and journal practices [ 38 ]. In this commentary, we provide practical approaches for editors and journal publishers to improve EDI in academic journals based on the six minimum standards set by the RSC. In Table 1 we also provide examples of journals that implemented some of these strategies. Finally, EDI issues in academia are tightly intertwined with systemic oppression that is integrated in policies and regulations of academic progression. Thus, both a bottom-up and top-down approach are needed to induce change. Subsequently, we reflect on the role of reviewers, researchers, academic institutions, and funding agencies in shaping the academic ecosystem. Figure 1 presents how these stakeholders contribute to fostering a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive academic community.

Key model for improving equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) of journals. This figure was generated by the authors using Canva ( https://www.canva.com/ )

The role of journals

Given that the impact of journal policies on compliance to mandates has been demonstrated in several areas, such as clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines [ 45 , 46 , 47 ], editors and publishers should articulate a framework that influences the incorporation of EDI. We propose below six approaches that align with the six RSC recommendations for improving EDI in academic publishing.

Adopt a journal diversity statement with clear, actionable steps to achieve it

Increasing diversity and inclusion in scientific publishing enhances excellence and innovation. Adopting a journal diversity statement, with clear, actionable steps to achieve it, is a practical first step for defining the problem and establishing accountability [ 37 ]. Explicitly defining the problem helps ensure that everyone shares the same understanding of it. Moreover, this process engages senior leadership to support EDI principles, making it clear to authors, reviewers, and editors that change is a priority. Several reports show that these recognition schemes provide an impetus for action on EDI which translates to more inclusive environments [ 48 ]. More than 47 publishing organizations have adopted recognition schemes [ 49 ]. Wiley publishing has developed guidance for assisting editors in developing an EDI statement [ 50 ]. The process involves the following three steps: (1) assessing the journal and research community’s needs, (2) identifying action priorities for the journal (I.e., changes in recruitment process, improving the diversity of invited reviewers), and (3) developing an active statement that acknowledges that this process is an ongoing one that will require revisiting on a regular basis to answer unknown questions.

Promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language

Avoiding the perpetuation of prejudicial beliefs or demeaning attitudes in publishing activities may improve the recruitment of populations experiencing disadvantages. In turn, the journal should promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language in all correspondence and the journal website content [ 51 ]. With changes in language over time, editors should address individuals and or communities as they prefer to describe themselves, their experiences, and practices. For example, a notable addition to the 7 th edition of the America Psychological Association is the recommendation to use the singular “they” to refer to individuals when the identified pronouns are unknown or hypothetical person is irrelevant within the context [ 37 ]. The University of Nottingham reported improvements in the recruitment of female researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) when the language of advertised fellowships was checked for gender inclusivity among schemes [ 48 , 52 , 53 ].

Appoint a journal’s equity, diversity and inclusion director or lead

When leaders use the power associated with their positions to advocate for EDI this may help support others to eradicate prejudice and discrimination. Editors in chief should prefer to include scholars with underrepresented backgrounds and EDI expertise to lead in EDI advocacy roles. They could, albeit less preferable, nominate one of their associate editors who has an underrepresented background or recruit an individual with expertise on EDI who does not have an underrepresented background. It would be wise to create a consultation committee for the EDI lead composed of underrepresented academics, EDI leaders, and members of the public with unique, lived experiences. The perspectives of underrepresented individuals could be crucial for the team’s success as it would help produce more culturally competent and practical solutions. The responsibilities of the lead could include reviewing journal processes while working with the Editors in chief, raising awareness of unconscious bias among the editorial teams and implementing initiatives that could improve EDI. The lead should also be responsible for developing strategies that would diversify the editorial teams, peer reviewers and authorship as well as monitor the journal’s progress in achieving EDI. The individual or team leading this appointment should review the journal’s recruitment sources and how the journal linguistically composes invitations to join the editorial teams. Of note, experience in the field of EDI and understanding of EDI principles alone are insufficient to achieve these goals. Leaders aiming to take on this role should be creative in developing strategies that align with the journal’s aims and resources.

Establish a mentoring approach

There is plenty of evidence showing that members of certain populations are underrepresented in editorial roles. This impedes their ability to receive adequate experience to take on leadership positions. The process of finding editorial board members in all disciplines is challenging as is therefore recruiting editors with diverse backgrounds, gender identities, ethnicities and geographical locations would likely prove to be more challenging. However, a diverse and representative team may be more likely to display increased cultural competency based on their more diverse set of lived experiences. Efforts to recruit a representative team should be in place, and deficiencies in diversity should be explicitly acknowledged as a work in progress. Furthermore, all editorial positions should be time limited as any permanent position of power is prone to propagating disparities.

Journals can post open calls for reviewer positions rather than solely depending on personal networks to improve the diversity of their reviewer pool. These advertisements should be checked for inclusivity of their wording as well as the locations of their posting. It should be noted that the use of algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI) to identify reviewers, reinforces negative cycle of bias against researchers in low-middle income countries and marginalized populations [ 54 ]. Therefore, if AI is used, editors should monitor for potential biases, assess, and mitigate them. In addition, journal editors may encourage authors to recommend reviewers from under-represented backgrounds. Populations carrying the greatest burden of health inequities need a stronger voice in the planning and implementation of their health care and the systems meant to support it, yet for the most part, remain excluded from decision-making processes [ 55 , 56 ]. Therefore, when inviting reviewers, it may be beneficial to invite reviewers familiar with the article’s content. Knowledge of the author’s name, institution, professional status, or geographical location may result in unconscious bias and abstract the objectivity of the peer review process. To help minimize unconscious bias, journal editors should consider a double anonymized peer review policy where the peer reviewers are not aware of the manuscript's authors and vice versa [ 37 ].

When candidates for journal positions lack experience, establishing a mentoring approach may be a pragmatic approach to preparing them for the role in the future. Senior members of the editorial teams could team up with more junior members and tailor the mentoring according to their needs. Since mentors are highly likely to come from non-underrepresented groups, mentors should receive unconscious bias training or other EDI training as necessary (i.e microaggressions, anti-racism) before engaging in mentorship activities. Given that most editorial positions are voluntary, mentoring activities need to be encouraged and acknowledged to support their work. Mentors could be rewarded by compensating them for their time or establishing internal awards for mentor excellence that may help in promotions and tenures. The uptake of these strategies by several journals may help establish a community of mentors that could be drawn on for mentorship activities. Undergoing training in research integrity may help prepare them for their roles by engaging with their mentees meaningfully and creating a supportive environment. VIRT2UE Train the trainee program is intended for individuals interested in becoming trainers in research integrity. The program focuses on developing behaviours of high moral standards related to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and applying them to specific cases and dilemmas.

Monitor adherence to equity, diversity and inclusion principles

To identify gaps in diversity, meaningful and accurate data collection on the composition of editors, peer reviewers and authors is required. Journal editors need to systematically collect demographic data to accurately assess journal progress and tailor their goals accordingly. A standard list of questions should be presented to the research community where they can voluntarily provide self-identification data such as career stage, gender, race & ethnicity, and geographical location of the journal community [ 57 ]. As a first step, journals can use the eight identification categories proposed in the questionnaire distributed by the Employment Equity Act and adjust as appropriate. Alternatively, journals may employ external services, such as TOP factor [ 58 ], to monitor journal metrics in implementing EDI principles. Empirical approaches are also needed to determine the effectiveness of the approaches used to improve EDI in academic settings. The UK Research and Innovation summarized interventions, frameworks and outcomes measured to quantitatively monitor changes in EDI interventions. They note the lack of experimental approaches to assess EDI interventions and small sample sizes. Thus, researchers should investigate rigorous approaches to investigate the effectiveness of EDI interventions.

Publish reports on equity, diversity and inclusion

To hold journals accountable for their progress, journals and publishers should make their data on diversity available to the public. Therefore, journals should ensure that they acquire informed consent from participants when collecting their self-identifiable. Their data should be treated with the utmost sensitivity and stored with great care. Although we are not aware of the most appropriate approach to store data, there are ten established rules for storing digital data that journals may apply to safeguard sensitive information [ 59 ]. Journals should only present the data in an aggregated form to ensure the confidentiality of participants.

The role of peer reviewers

Reviewers and journal editors must consider that the author’s first language might not be English. Thus, they must be understanding and try to base their decision on the quality of research rather than the language. If significant language corrections are needed, we suggest directing them to a language service such as SAGE Author Services or Language Editor Services by ElSEVIER and subsequently invite them to resubmit once their manuscript is reviewed. Adjustment may be needed for authors with disabilities or neurodiverse conditions, and peer reviewers should support them accordingly. They may offer them additional feedback, extra time for revisions or arrange a call to discuss feedback.

The role of researchers

The impact of marginalization on the health of marginalized groups is well established [ 60 ]. However, their perspectives are yet to be adequately reflected in evidence bases [ 55 ]. The absence of regularly collected data on outcomes and experiences of under-represented populations limits the relevance of available primary evidence informing evidence-based practice. Populations experiencing inequities need a stronger voice in the planning and the implementation of health care services as well as the systems designed to support them. For this reason, they should be involved in decision-making processes [ 55 , 56 ]. Greater involvement of stakeholders in evidence syntheses can support greater inclusion of social and organizational factors that may influence interventions and review findings [ 61 ]. Furthermore, Incorporating EDI in research ensures that pre-conceived beliefs and eco-chamber societies are likely avoided, minimizing confirmation bias and increasing the credibility of research findings [ 62 ]. An example of this is The New England Journal of Medicine which requires authors to provide the representativeness of the study group in a table as a Supplementary Appendix [ 63 ]. They also require authors to appropriately report on the representativeness of the patients included in the study and assess the generalizability of the research findings to populations at risk of experiencing inequities.

Reporting guidelines may improve the reporting of research and should be used by researchers [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. Although guidelines such as the SAGER guidelines have recommended sex-specific analyses to obtain more equitable evidence [ 68 ], and several funders have mandated their analyses, such mandates may be insufficient to change reporting practices [ 69 ]. Researchers must demonstrate their commitment to improving equity in research by adhering to equity reporting guidelines such as the extensions of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) [ 70 ] and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [ 71 ] more work is needed to assess their impact on reporting.

The role of universities and academic institutions

Students from under-represented groups face several barriers to success when engaging with academia’s traditional measures and systems of evaluation [ 4 , 30 , 72 , 73 ]. A study conducted by Heller and colleagues found that as the GPA score requirements increased in medical schools, in the United States from 2005 to 2009, the diversity of the classes decreased [ 74 ]. This suggests that evaluations heavily based on academic metrics often come at the expense of EDI. Thus, establishing a different definition of student academic excellence may help improve EDI in academic institutions.

Several approaches have succeeded in improving diversity among trainees and early-career researchers [ 75 , 76 ]. However, differential recruitment, retention, and promotion rates across several factors such as age, sex and race are yet to be improved [ 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. This may be partly due to the narrow focus on citation metrics and publications for the evaluation of these processes [ 30 , 81 , 82 ]. Institutions should award strong mentorship that involve the support of marginalized groups and include tenure or promotion assessments in recruitment. These awards include the National Science Foundation’s Presidential Award for Excellence for Science Math and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM), the Australian Museum Eureka Award, and the Nature Research Awards for Mentoring in Science. Expanding the measures of success to include non-academic metrics would enhance the selection of diverse candidates and set the stage for a diverse, new generation of researchers.

Furthermore, academic course coordinators should consider teaching the curriculum from an EDI perspective by diversifying the reading material of courses as well as the research used to compose the learning material [ 4 ]. Emphasizing diversity in the educational curriculum fosters the inclusion of diverse students, staff, and relevant topics and better engages underrepresented groups through a curriculum that reflects their lived experiences.

The role of funding agencies

Several funding agencies, such as NIH [ 83 ] and CIHR [ 84 ] have acknowledged the importance of equity research. This is integral for improving academia as research funding is indispensable in an academic’s career. Including diversity factors as a scorable criterion may improve research since several studies have shown that diverse teams produce more innovative, creative, and impactful science [ 81 , 85 , 86 ]. Funding agencies could also create grants dedicated to underrepresented scholars to allow more opportunities for them and potentially eliminate the funding disparity in research. Examples include the Mental Health Dissertation Research Grant to Increase Diversity funded by the National Institute of Health [ 87 ] and the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) funded by the National Science Foundation [ 88 ]. Funding agencies could also consider instituting a minimum number of scholars from underrepresented populations as reviewers on funding panels [ 81 ]. We acknowledge that this may introduce a “diversity tax” where a burden may be placed on marginalized scholars. However, it is essential to note that the “diversity tax” becomes problematic when the positions and work done are not career enhancing. There needs to be more work on incentivising leadership positions for representatives of marginalized populations in terms of academic value and career progression.

Conclusions

Journal editors cannot change the culture of academic societies alone since they are constrained by a broader system. Therefore, we advocate for consolidated action for improving EDI by using a systems approach that involves journal publishers, researchers, academic institutions, and funders. We acknowledge the lack of studies that show the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving EDI. However, we believe that journals adhering to the minimum standards set by RSC and following the guidance suggested in this paper may help journals obtain data that can help monitor their EDI progress. In writing this commentary, we reviewed it for inclusivity and bias-free language. We urge journal editors to develop evaluation plans to measure the effects of EDI interventions in improving the editorial culture using innovative methodological approaches.

Availability of data and materials

No data was reported in this article.

Baveye PC. Objectivity of the peer-review process: Enduring myth, reality, and possible remedies. Learn Publishing. 2021;34(4):696–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1414 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kaatz A, Gutierrez B, Carnes M. Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2014;35(8):371–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2014.06.005 .

About Editors Canada. Editors' Association of Canada. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://www.editors.ca/about-editors-canada

Buitendijk S, Curry S, Maes K. Equality, diversity and inclusion at universities: the power of a systemic approach. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.leru.org/publications/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-at-universities

Fox CW, Paine CET. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol. 2019;9(6):3599–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4993 .

Patel SR, Riano I, Geiger G, et al. Where are the women and underrepresented minorities in medicine? Race/ethnicity and gender representation in oncology journals’ editorial boards. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15_suppl):11007. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.11007 .

Ford E, Kaspar WA, Seiden P. Diversity of ACRL publications, editorial board demographics: A report from ACRL’s Publications Coordinating Committee. College & Research Libraries News; Vol 78, No 10 (2017): NovemberDO - 105860/crln7810548. 2017

Gallivan E, Arshad S, Skinner H, Burke JR, Young AL. Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery. BJS Open. 2021;5(2):64. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa064 .

Goyanes M, Demeter M. How the geographic diversity of editorial boards affects what is published in JCR-Ranked communication journals. J Mass Commun Q. 2020;97(4):1123–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904169 .

Xu B, Meng H, Qin S, et al. How international are the editorial boards of leading spine journals? A STROBE-compliant study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(5): e14304. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014304 .

Pike KM, Min SH, Poku OB, Reed GM, Saxena S. A renewed call for international representation in editorial boards of international psychiatry journals. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):106–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20389 .

Espin J, Palmas S, Carrasco-Rueda F, et al. A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(12): e2002760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002760 .

Ricci M. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Why Wiley? Why Research Publishing? Wiley Publishing. Accessed 04 Jan 2022. https://www.wiley.com/network/latest-content/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-why-wiley-why-research-publishing

Trepte S, Loths L. National and gender diversity in communication: A content analysis of six journals between 2006 and 2016. Ann Int Commun Assoc. 2020;44(4):289–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1804434 .

Pritlove C, Juando-Prats C, Ala-Leppilampi K, Parsons JA. The good, the bad, and the ugly of implicit bias. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):502–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32267-0 .

Johnson TJ, Ellison AM, Dalembert G, et al. Implicit bias in pediatric academic medicine. J Natl Med Assoc. 2017;109(3):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2017.03.003.2017Autumn .

Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):531–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 .

Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, et al. Peer review and gender bias: a study on 145 scholarly journals. Sci Adv. 2021;7(2):eabd0299. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0299 .

Backhus LM, Lui NS, Cooke DT, Bush EL, Enumah Z, Higgins R. Unconscious bias: addressing the hidden impact on surgical education. Thorac Surg Clin. 2019;29(3):259–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2019.03.004 .

Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, Carnes M. A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;73:211–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002 .

Carnes M, Devine PG, BaierManwell L, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):221–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552 .

Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WT. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012;48(6):1267–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003 .

Research CIoH. Unconscious Bias Training Module. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/lms/e/bias/

eLesson: Unconscious Bias. Microsoft. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://www.mslearning.microsoft.com/course/72169/launch

San’yas anti-racism indigenous cultural safety training program. https://sanyas.ca/ . Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

Indigenous Cultural Competency Training (ICCT). Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC). Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://ofifc.org/training-learning/indigenous-cultural-competency-training-icct/

Minimum standards for inclusion and diversity for scholarly publishing. Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.rsc.org/new-perspectives/talent/minimum-standards-for-inclusion-and-diversity-for-scholarly-publishing/

Fox CW, Albert AYK, Vines TH. Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017;2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x .

Diversifying editorial boards. COPE. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://publicationethics.org/news/diversifying-editorial-boards

Swartz TH, Palermo AS, Masur SK, Aberg JA. The science and value of diversity: closing the gaps in our understanding of inclusion and diversity. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(220 Suppl 2):S33–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz174 .

AlShebli BK, Rahwan T, Woon WL. The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8 .

Powell K. These labs are remarkably diverse - here’s why they’re winning at science. Nature. 2018;558(7708):19–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05316-5 .

Framework for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Ontario Trillium Foundation. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://otf.ca/who-we-are/about-us/our-commitments/framework-diversity-equity-and-inclusion

Equity, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism. Ontario Health. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://www.ontariohealth.ca/equity-inclusion-diversity-and-anti-racism

Ames S. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: A Framework to Make it Happen. Brighter strategies. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://www.brighterstrategies.com/blog/diversity-equity-inclusion-framework/

Frameworks for Equity. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://kojoinstitute.com/equity-frameworks-diversity-training-consultations/

American Association of Psychologists . Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Toolkit for Journal Editors. Washignton DC: American Psychological Association; 2021.

How can we support reviewer diversity? BMC Blog Network. Accessed 28 Feb 2022. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-medicine/2021/09/23/how-can-we-support-reviewer-diversity/

A commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion for BMJ and our journals. theBMJopinon. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/23/a-commitment-to-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-for-bmj-and-our-journals/

The Lancet: Advancing racial equality. The Lancet. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.thelancet.com/racial-equality

The Inclusion & Diversity Advisory Board. Accessed 22 Feb 2022. https://www.elsevier.com/about/inclusion-diversity-board/i-and-d-board

Associate Editor Mentoring Opportunity. Journal of Applied Ecology. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/13652664/journal-resources/associate-editor-mentoring#:~:text=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Ecology%20runs,or%20no%20previous%20editorial%20experience .

Workplace Equity Survey. Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://c4disc.org/workplace-equity-survey/

Pendlebury EC, Cushman M. Annual report on equity, diversity, and inclusion: research and practice in thrombosis and Haemostasis is meeting its goals. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2021;7:e12610.

Google Scholar  

Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(26):2779–87. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa053234 .

Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12): e83138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 .

Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–7. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x .

Guyan K, Oloyede FD. Equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation: UK review. UK Research and Innovation. Accessed 04 Jan 2022. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-020920-EDI-EvidenceReviewUK.pdf

Joint commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing. Royal Society of Chemistry. Accessed 04 Jan 2022. https://www.rsc.org/new-perspectives/talent/joint-commitment-for-action-inclusion-and-diversity-in-publishing

How to Create a Journal diversity, Equity & Inclusion Statement. Wiley. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.wiley.com/network/archive/how-to-create-a-journal-diversity-equity-inclusion-statement

Bias-Free Language. American Psychological Association. Accessed 03 Jan 2022. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language

Nottingham Research and Anne McLaren Fellowships. University of Nottingham. Accessed 04 Jan 2022. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/researchwithus/fellowships/nottingham/index.aspx

New project to engineer diversity into STEMM workforces. University of Nottingham. Accessed 04 Jan 2022. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2018/august/new-project-to-engineer-diversity-into-stemm-workforces.aspx

Heaven D. AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind. Nature. 2018;7733:609–10.

Serrant-Green L. The sound of ‘silence’: a framework for researching sensitive issues or marginalised perspectives in health. J Res Nurs. 2010;16(4):347–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110387741 .

Cho S, Williams Crenshaw K, McCall L. Toward a field of intersectionality Studies: theory, applications, and praxis. Signs. 2013;38(4):785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608 .

Frequently asked questions on the program’s equity, diversity and inclusion requirements and practices. Government of Canada. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/equity-equite/faqs-questions_frequentes-eng.aspx#1c

TOP Factor. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://topfactor.org/

Hart EM, Barmby P, LeBauer D, et al. Ten simple rules for digital data storage. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12(10): e1005097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005097 .

Braveman P. What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear. Public Health Rep (Washington, DC :1974). 2014;129(Suppl 2):5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549141291S203 .

Harris J, Croot L, Thompson J, Springett J. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(2):207–14. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205701 .

Unerman J. Risks from self-referential peer review echo chambers developing in research fields: 2018 Keynote Address presented at The British Accounting Review 50th Anniversary Celebrations, British Accounting and Finance Association Annual Conference, London. Br Account Rev. 2020;52(5): 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100910 .

Editorial Policies. New England Journal of Medicine. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies#:~:text=The%20New%20England%20Journal%20of%20Medicine%20is%20committed%20to%20fostering,by%20the%20condition%20being%20studied .

Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract. 2017;15(1):943–943. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2017.01.943 .

Pratt M, Wieland S, Ahmadzai N, et al. A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01328-3 .

Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Re. 2017;6(1):263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 .

Veroniki AA, Tsokani S, Zevgiti S, et al. Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):246. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01780-9 .

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 .

Dewidar O, Podinic I, Barbeau V, et al. Integrating sex and gender in studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(1):420–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13733 .

Welch VA, Norheim OF, Jull J, et al. CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials. BMJ. 2017;359: j5085. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5085 .

Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10): e1001333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333 .

Barnes BJ, Williams EA, Stassen MLA. Dissecting doctoral advising: a comparison of students’ experiences across disciplines. J Further Higher Educ. 2012;36(3):309–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.614933 .

Hughes BE. Coming out in STEM: factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Sci Adv. 2018;4(3):aao6373. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao6373 .

Heller CA, Rúa SH, Mazumdar M, Moon JE, Bardes C, Gotto AM. Diversity efforts, admissions, and national rankings: can we align priorities? Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(3):304–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2014.910465 .

Allen-Ramdial SA, Campbell AG. Reimagining the pipeline: advancing STEM diversity, persistence, and success. Bioscience. 2014;64(7):612–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu076 .

Smith JL, Handley IM, Zale AV, Rushing S, Potvin MA. Now Hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty gender diversity in STEM. BioScience. 2015;65(11):1084–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv138 .

Xu YJ. Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: a study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Res Higher Educ. 2008;49(7):607–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4 .

Box-Steffensmeier JM, Cunha RC, Varbanov RA, Hoh YS, Knisley ML, Holmes MA. Survival analysis of faculty retention and promotion in the social sciences by gender. PloS one. 2015;10(11):e0143093–e0143093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143093 .

Khan MS, Lakha F, Tan MMJ, et al. More talk than action: gender and ethnic diversity in leading public health universities. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):594–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32609-6 .

Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore Daniel B. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci Adv. 2015;1(1):e1400005. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400005 .

Stevens KR, Masters KS, Imoukhuede PI, et al. Fund Black scientists. Cell. 2021;184(3):561–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.011 .

Caplar N, Tacchella S, Birrer S. Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nat Astronomy. 2017;1(6):0141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0141 .

NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. https://www.edi.nih.gov/ . Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research. Government of Canada.  https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/edi-eng.aspx . Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US. National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 19905, https://www.nber.org/papers/w19905 . Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA. The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117(17):9284. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117 .

Mental Health Dissertation Research Grant to Increase Diversity. American Psychological Association. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.apa.org/about/awards/nih-mental#:~:text=These%20grants%20enable%20qualified%20doctoral,the%20research%20missions%20of%20NIMH .

Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program. National Science Foundation. Accessed 24 Feb 2022. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03520/nsf03520.htm#:~:text=The%20Louis%20Stokes%20Alliances%20for,engineering%2C%20and%20mathematics%20(STEM )

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Mario Malički, the editor in chief for guiding this commentary with his critical review and thought provoking questions. We would like to thank the research community for supporting the integration of equity, diversity, and inclusion principles in editorial and peer review processes.

No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Omar Dewidar, Nour Elmestekawy & Vivian Welch

Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Nour Elmestekawy

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Vivian Welch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Omar Dewidar and Vivian Welch conceived this article. Omar Dewidar drafted the first draft. Nour Elmestekawy and Vivian Welch revised the article. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omar Dewidar .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethics approval was required for this article.

Competing interests

Vivian Welch is editor in chief of Campbell Systematic Reviews. Omar Dewidar and Nour Elmestekawy declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dewidar, O., Elmestekawy, N. & Welch, V. Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia. Res Integr Peer Rev 7 , 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z

Download citation

Received : 20 January 2022

Accepted : 26 May 2022

Published : 04 July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research Integrity
• Journal policies
• Editorial bias

Research Integrity and Peer Review

ISSN: 2058-8615

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Workplace: Strategies for Achieving and Sustaining a Diverse Workforce

2022, Advance Research in Social Science and Management

This research paper explores the critical issue of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace and the strategies that can be employed to achieve and sustain a diverse workforce. The research paper is based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature, including peerreviewed articles, reports, and other relevant documents. The paper aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by offering practical recommendations for organisations seeking to enhance DEI in their workplaces. The research methods employed in this study involve a systematic literature review that includes a comprehensive search of electronic databases. The review process was guided by inclusion and exclusion criteria that ensured the selection of relevant and high-quality literature. The study's findings suggest that organisations can implement various strategies to enhance DEI in the workplace. These strategies include setting DEI goals, providing diversity training, promoting inclusive leadership, implementing flexible work arrangements, and leveraging technology to support DEI initiatives. Additionally, organisations must establish an inclusive culture that recognises and values individual differences, promotes fairness and respect, and provides equal opportunities for all employees. In conclusion, this research paper emphasises the importance of DEI in the workplace and the need for organisations to develop and implement strategies that foster a diverse and inclusive workforce. The study's findings offer practical recommendations that can guide organisations in achieving and sustaining DEI. Ultimately, organisations prioritising DEI will likely enjoy significant benefits, including increased employee engagement, improved organisational performance, and enhanced innovation and creativity

Related Papers

RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

Prof. Neharika Vohra

Akram AL ARISS

Editor: Mustafa F. Özbilgin. This book discusses equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) matters in the context of the workplace. At first sight, the front cover of this book showing an image of open hands of diverse colours excited me about opening the book for an initial cursory browse. After reading the contents page, my interest was aroused by the various subjects discussed throughout the 31 chapters of this volume. The book is suitable for postgraduate students, scholars, practitioners and policymakers who are interested in theory and practice of EDI mainly in industrialised countries such as the US and UK.

Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series

Abiodun Afolabi

Human Resource Management

Nicholas Theodorakopoulos

Journal of Business Ethics

Thomas Maak

Christina Morfaki

Fundamental worldwide economic, socio-demographic, and regulatory shifts are largely responsible for the spike in interest in the topic of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) in the workplace. Existing research indicates that the focus on workforce diversity and inclusion has attained worldwide currency among HR managers and organizational leaders. However, its enactment remains challenging, partly as its conceptual operationalization is plagued by national, cultural, institutional, and interpersonal barriers. Moreover, there appears to be a gap between the rhetoric of D&I and the idiosyncrasies of its implementation. This gap should be bridged to foster D&I and embed it in the organizational system. To achieve this, we argue that organizations are expected to foster the development of diverse communities of practice; these communities could reshape corporate policies and practices, promote meaningful interactions, serve to develop a shared identity that will challenge entrenched beliefs, and create new artifacts and working cultures. The latter could lead to a restructure of current organizational structures and a reformation of tokenistic joint missions and values. This critical review will assess and highlight recent advancements in the D&I management literature while presenting a broader perspective on the practices at the heart of the field. The conclusion of the study considers potential future avenues for D&I management research and practice.

This authoritative text sets UK and European practices of divesity and inclusion firmly within a global context. Key features: International and cross-cultural case studies, examples and comparisons from a range of countries including the emerging economies Case study approach illuminates complex theories by showing how they are applied in practice Criticality is central to the book with each chapter including critical analysis, critical questions and boxed critical insights and reflections Companion website with free full text journal articles Reviews: The book edited by our colleagues, Jawad Syed and Mustafa Ozbilgin, is quite refreshing and gives some important critical reflections on the issue of diversity in our contemporary organizations and societies. It deserves to be read by all of us who are interested and deal with Diversity Issues. -- Jean-François Chanlat, Full Professor and 'Management et diversité' co-chair, P.S.L Research, Université Paris-Dauphine This book is an invaluable resource to help employers, managers and policy makers understand the challenges of moving forward in the diversity and inclusion space, and the ways in which to respond to different cultural contexts. It is a much needed piece of work which draws together various experiences and perspective on diversity and inclusion, to help really start thinking, reflecting and moving forward in a way that is not only socially responsible and ethical but also business-oriented. Combining academic work across various disciplines and cultures with numerous organisational examples, the book provides fresh insight to scholars and practitioners to understand this topic and be more confident, proactive and inclusive in their approach to diversity, rather than being constrained and limited to minimal legal compliance. -- Dianah Worman, OBE Chartered FCIPD, Diversity lead for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Understanding of the depth and complexity of diversity management has grown considerably over the last decade. From a discourse which focused primarily on individualised rights and treatment, academic and professional thinking and writing has built on growing perspectives of workplace and societal cultures and hegemonies so as to inform discussion on addressing some of the more chronic, long-standing issues of under-representation and disadvantage. It is increasingly understood that successful strategies to improve the breadth and depth of diversity in organisations requires pro-active and compelling thinking and understanding, not just a list of dos and don’ts! The authors of this book have detailed and long-standing work and experience of these issues. The book brings together a variety of approaches which will add important context to current issues and debate. -- David Ruebain, Chief Executive of Equality Challenge Unit

Mustafa Ozbilgin

`Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work, edited by Mustafa F. Ozbilgin is a fascinating and useful collection of articles that cover varied perspectives on this thriving topic. Theoretical issues and policy problems, equal opportunity and diversity management, sociological and psychological approaches, history and present management and trade union efforts, and much more are all covered. I particularly appreciated the inclusion of several articles on men, masculinities, equality and diversity, a refreshing recognition of the importance of men and masculinities in the success or failure of equality and diversity efforts. Although the collection covers the UK in the most detail, chapters on the US, Germany, South Africa, and Japan provide a multinational perspective. It's the kind of book I'd like to have at hand when I'm writing about organizations, gender, equality and diversity.' - Joan Acker, University of Oregon, US With over thirty chapters, this book offers a truly interdisciplinary collection of original contributions that are likely to influence theorization in the field of equality, diversity and inclusion at work. Many chapters in the book offer comparative perspectives through cross-national and multi-level analyses. The volume adopts a critical perspective as it focuses on relations of power in exploring equality, diversity and inclusion at work. Specifically, the authors examine areas such as cultural conflict, gender inequity and politics, work-life balance, affirmative action, trade unions and diversity and diversity interventions and change. This timely book with chapters that are contributed by internationally eminent scholars provides an invaluable resource for researchers, policy makers and students in this field.

Centuries of human rights activism and decades of political, demographic and social changes have been driving the agenda for equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the world of work. This long period of transformation has witnessed substantial progress as traditionally excluded and marginalised groups made inroads into the fields of education and employment, from which they were previously excluded. In many industrialised countries, these positive changes in access to education and work have led recent generations of young women and men to feel that equality of opportunity has been largely achieved. Consequently, cohorts of students in higher education believe that their prospects of work and employment are without bias or prejudice. Some students find discussions of inequality and discrimination as irrelevant to their career plans. Unfortunately, much of this optimism is misguided. Despite a long history of progress towards EDI at work, multiple forms of inequality, discrimination and exclusion continue to mark the experience of individuals across their life course. This edited volume consisting of an introduction and 31 contributed chapters is a collective attempt at examining the continued relevance of studying EDI at work. In this introductory chapter, I first defi ne the EDI field at work. The chapter goes on to outline some salient frameworks for studying EDI across time and space. Then I explain the rationale for the volume, its structure as well as an overview of each chapter.

RELATED PAPERS

Francielly Soares

Susanne Rosberg

Najafizadeh.org (Najafizadeh, Hossein)

İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

EBRU KADIOĞULLARI

International Journal of Clinical Dental Science

jaineel parekh

Journal of Applied Physiology

Walter Vincken

Egyptian Journal of Chemistry

Atef Kalmoush

Clifford Analysis and Related Topics

Carmen Judith Vanegas Espinoza

Pakistan journal of zoology

Abdullah Mart

Giorgio Buccellati

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

Duarte Araujo

Ágnes Tamás

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Adriana Tremoulet

birgül ayman güler

The Journal of Immunology

LAURA PALACIOS OCHOA

Alberto Constante

Immunologic Research

Virender Singh Yadav

Revista Professor de Matemática On line

Eleonesio Strey

Sara Hamilton

endang wijaya

Anthony Kimaro

Barbara C. Hansen

Encuentros Multidisciplinares

Jose David Ferreira Acosta

Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal

Citizenship Education Research Journal/Revue de recherche sur l'éducation à la citoyenneté

Paul R Carr

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024