4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Discipline-Based Diversity Research in Chemistry

      research-article
      Accounts of Chemical Research
      American Chemical Society

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Conspectus

          We introduce the term discipline-based diversity research (DBDR) to capture the emerging field of research advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging with specificity to a given discipline. Contextualizing a human dynamic through a disciplinary lens has already given rise to discipline-based education research (DBER). The modalities through which students and practitioners think and process information are a reflection of a given discipline, and it tends to give rise to its professional practices. Through DBER, such specification is necessary in addressing evidence-based practices that are effective for teaching a particular subject. Likewise, the inequities and opportunities within a given field (and its professional culture) must be addressed within a disciplinary lens. Thus, the findings from social science in diversity in arbitrary contexts must be analyzed, interpreted, applied, and researched within a given discipline.

          One specific challenge to academic chemistry is the lack of inclusion in the sense that the faculties in research-active chemistry departments are far from diverse. We recapitulate the percentage of women and under-represented person of color (URPOC) professors over the past 20 years reported by us and other sources. The data admits to linear fits with high confidence. Assuming this linearity holds, the gender gap in representation would be bridged only in 2062, and the threshold of 20% of the faculty as URPOC would be reached only in 2113. While the community has actively engaged in modifying practices and procedures to redress this grim projection, it should be clear that more needs to be done.

          Toward this objective, we have been driven by the top-down hypothesis that solutions must be led intentionally through the top—that is, by department heads and chairs—because they are the stewards of the infrastructure. Department chairs and the chemistry community have engaged in DBDR through biennial workshops—that is, through the Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE)’s National Diversity Equity Workshops (NDEWs)—to survey and evaluate existing policies and practices aimed at advancing inclusive excellence. This has led to research-based recommendations for the implementation of solutions in chemistry departments. This includes (i) engaging in community, (ii) conducting authentic and open searches, and (iii) recognizing and rewarding inclusive excellence. What makes them DBDR in chemistry is that we have to articulate and contextualize these solutions in terms of practices and procedures that we conduct in chemistry, assess their efficacy, and promote them across our discipline. Furthermore, we must offer theories of change for reforming them while offering frameworks that fit within how chemists think and practice.

          In this Account, we demonstrate how DBDR has taken root in chemistry, forecast where this emerging field may go, and provide a blueprint for how it might be replicated in other disciplines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

          Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants' preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acc Chem Res
                Acc Chem Res
                ar
                achre4
                Accounts of Chemical Research
                American Chemical Society
                0001-4842
                1520-4898
                27 January 2023
                04 April 2023
                27 January 2024
                : 56
                : 7
                : 787-797
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Chemistry, Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering and Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8526-7414
                Article
                10.1021/acs.accounts.2c00797
                10078607
                36705614
                747fa501-60aa-4503-ac71-29f29d9b8c9b
                © 2023 The Author. Published by American Chemical Society

                Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 01 December 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, doi 10.13039/100000879;
                Award ID: NA
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                ar2c00797
                ar2c00797

                General chemistry
                General chemistry

                Comments

                Comment on this article