Navigating the old and ’new normal’: Equality, Diversity & Inclusion in science Part 1
This post was written by Alex and Rokia, with support and critique from the Science London collective.
In this blog series we build on several themes from previous content weeks that have focused on anti-racism in science, and incorporated ideas of transformation and stagnation to reflect on the current landscape and potential future of science communication. Here we consider how wider inequalities shape the structure of inclusive science communication, as well as the experiences of those who, like us, aspire to make the creation, communication and use of science inclusive .
Drawing upon the various experiences of our collective, we discuss the challenging realities and optimistic imaginings of remaining committed to inclusivity in science communication. While acknowledging that doing this work is not easy, we hope this series of blog posts will highlight why it’s worth pursuing and can offer some strategies on how to keep going.
Covid & context:
In a world unquestionably changed by the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (which causes COVID-19), many of us are having to develop new ways to exist, interact and (hopefully) thrive across all aspects of our personal and professional lives. It is tacitly understood that the end point for these processes of reconfiguration, will be the creation of a “New Normal”. A multi-purpose buzzword that, for us, further highlights how power/privilege, or lack thereof, shapes the lives of individuals and society at large.
For some, particularly those disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, the phrase appears to signify increased hardship, uncertainty and exposure to the virus. While for others, whose relative privilege/security affords them physical and economic resilience to the ongoing crisis, it might mean stagnation: underpinned by a desire to return to the comfort of what was. In relation to the work Science London do as a collective, the phrase got us thinking about what these processes of reconfiguration mean in the short and longer term for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) work in science communication (scicomm); and whether/ how our journey to ‘The New Normal’ could create space for positive transformation and progress.
However, before we delve into what could be (there will be more of that in part 2), we thought we should look at the existing arrangement of EDI within science communication, what is changing within the public science space and consider what these changes mean for developing inclusive science.
The landscape:
“STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES ARE PART OF THE SOUP OF SOCIALIZATION WE ALL SWIM IN. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO REPRODUCE THEM UNLESS WE WORK HARD AGAINST THEM”
As the quote above from Drs Emily Dawson and Barbara Streicher indicates, theoretical and practical work that promotes equality, diversity and inclusion in science, as a form of social justice, is necessary because the environments internal and external to science are inherently unequal. As science communicators, traditional visions of science as a; white, male, western enterprise are both tacitly and explicitly sustained by the dominant narratives we’re encouraged to share, because they so rarely include the scientific knowledge and experiences of those that exist beyond such narrow framings.
It is important we understand that the exclusionary nature of science communication is not an ‘error’ from a previous time, but a deliberate part of its design. Because, as countless public engagement with science (PES) scholars have shown us, communicating science is not about telling nuanced, inclusive narratives. It is often about selling a specific version of science to publics, who are imagined as homogenous and deficient in scientific knowledge, but whose support is crucial to the financial stability of state funded science, public science centres etc. and the continued use of science in political decision making.
These ideas, initially surfacing in the Royal Society’s 1985 ‘Bodmer report’ and the House of Lords 2000 Science and Society report, are famously discussed by the likes of Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin . For more general discussions regarding EDI and science communication, The Journal of Science Communication (JCOM) covers important dimensions of socially inclusive scicomm and we have found the Frontiers special issue: Inclusive Science Communication in Theory and Practice helpful in shaping our thinking about the current situation.
Mapping the landscape of EDI in science communication makes clear: that committing to communicating science in ways that values diverse knowledge traditions, or highlights how science upholds intersecting forms of oppression, mounts a challenge to grand narratives of western science as morally and epistemically superior. In short, promoting EDI in scicomm involves working against normative understandings of science and the aims of communicating science to the public.
Similar to our previous discussions on allyship and activism in science communication, inclusive practice in scicomm takes many forms. It is visible in the individual voice that challenges a non-diverse scicomm panel, through to full EDI teams that develop frameworks for inclusive practice at institutional levels . Ultimately we are all working towards the same goal: a science that is accessible to and inclusive of all people. However, it is worth noting that you are often equally positioned as working against the scientific status quo, when outside scientific institutions, as you are when directly employed by them to do EDI work.
As Dr Anamik Saha suggests, teams created under the EDI banner may not truly be designed to address issues of diversity and inclusivity:
“Diversity initiatives in various forms have been established for decades now, yet very little changes in terms of the representation…[or the structure/function of institutions]… Is it because such initiatives are not being properly implemented? Do they represent nothing more than a form of lip service, a tokenistic gesture? Is it the case that diversity has become a money-making industry in itself, with diversity practitioners Or is it [as they go on to argue]…because diversity initiatives in fact serve an ideological function. They are a way of managing the demands for equality while keeping...hierarchies intact.”
Although talking about the racial disparities in the cultural industries, much of their critique is applicable to the structure of the scientific community. At a time when scientific institutions have (reactively) pledged to address issues of inclusion and marginalisation within their workforces and public interactions (e.g. The Science Museums ‘Open for All’ action plan) we should be attentive to whether publicly performed solidarity translates to tangible change. Further, as Sara Ahmed’s work explains, we must consider where the burden of institutionalised diversity work sits and how it can be used to circumvent processes of accountability and reflexivity.
This is something I (Rokia) have witnessed first hand, having been involved in town halls related to racism within academia. Despite any willingness from non marginalised individuals involved, the emotional and practical burden to educate and tackle issues of racism, sexism, ableism, etc. often finds its way onto the shoulders of already marginalised individuals who are given lots of encouragement to fix a problem they did not create. In so doing, those in a position of privilege are often free to disengage from the process, assured it is being taken care of elsewhere.
What’s changed?
The biggest change for science communication industries comes from social isolation policies which forced large scale closures. For Science London, this meant we would no longer be able to hold in-person inclusive scicomm workshops or training sessions as we had initially planned; instead, we had to consider new ways we could support our community. As Drs Emily Dawson and Barbara Streicher note: the doors closing on public science engagement organisations sent shockwaves through the industry, but the impacts of diminished revenue streams and unemployment have not distributed evenly. Those on precarious/ freelance/ temporary/ short-term contracts and non-profits being worse impacted. And, as mentioned in our previous post on payment, these contracts are largely held by the multiply marginalised within society and is the way many (or even most) EDI workers are employed. In other words, EDI work in science is rarely a primary goal for large scale institutions. If you look at management structures/ boards/ committees within large institutions there is rarely someone whose role is dedicated to EDI, signally that our work is generally viewed as peripheral to the needs of public facing science.
We would also add that discussing payment in EDI roles is a vital part of anti-racist work. It was only a few months ago, in June 2020, that the #Publishingpaidme trend showed the widespread pay disparities that exist in the publishing industry. This online movement sparked new interest in the introduction of ethnicity pay audit legislation similar to the gender pay gap reporting; several petitions were started, one petition recording over 130 thousand signatures in support. As we approach the 100th day since this petition closed, the government are yet to set a date to debate this. Moreover, since the start of the pandemic the British Government has relaxed the laws on collecting gender pay gap audits from companies despite the mass redundancies expected which will inevitably affect women and minorities the hardest.
Additionally, since the bans on social gatherings began, we have also seen a large migration of content online. Conferences and speakers were suddenly hosting more talks through available and often free of charge webinars. In many cases this means increased accessibility to high profile speakers or events, particularly for those with (dis)abilities or commitments that made travelling to events challenging. But this is undeniably a double edged sword, as (technological/ socio-economic) inequality will still govern who has access to these ‘free’ events. For example; users while users needing access to computers/ the internet are given, we must also consider who has access to quiet space in their homes to attend, or issues around cameras needing to be on during calls which may prevent people from joining. Overall we should be wary of the idea that migrating online automatically translates to a form of inclusive communication and find ways to harness this move equitably.
We finish part one by questioning what these changes might mean for EDI work in science/ scicomm. Will the opportunities to further embrace inclusive practice presented by migrating online be undermined by institutions' fears of relevancy and economic viability, therefore make the work harder for those of us committed to it? Will the dimensions of EDI work remain the same post COVID-19 e.g. who the burden of this work ultimately sits with and the personal and professional costs associated with participating in it? Are there opportunities to harness the momentum developed in relation to social justice amidst the pain and exhaustion of a global crisis? And whether government policy is providing avenues for institutions to enact inequitable practices without fear of being held accountable.
While it appears that the overall landscape may become more difficult to navigate, we should not lose hope, as opportunities for progress, however small, do exist. Importantly, if we are willing to openly discuss what is changing and what it might mean it gives us, at best, time to adapt and innovate so we can thrive in this new landscape and at worst, time to steady ourselves for the more difficult task ahead.