APPG on Diversity in STEM – enquiry into equity in the STEM workforce: written evidence

EDIS Response

In November 2020, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Diversity and Inclusion in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) launched its new inquiry into Equity in the UK STEM workforce. EDIS members were encouraged to submit independent responses to the inquiry and EDIS also submitted the following written evidence. This response from EDIS gives an overview of the experiences and challenges to our members in relation to equity in the STEM workforce, and collective ideas for solutions and progress.

Executive Summary

1. Demographic data collection should be coordinated and harmonised across the STEM sector, underpinned by an understanding that this is a symptom checker of culture rather than the focus of activities. This could be driven by the UK Government and as part of the People & Culture strategy within the R&D roadmap, co-developed with the STEM community. There should be a renewed emphasis on intersectionality and the value of qualitative data within this approach. We then recommend a sector-wide data strategy that can be used to answer ‘research on research’ questions and direct efforts to improving workforce equity.
2. Inclusive institutional culture drives and sustains diverse workforces and is key to any sector efforts in EDI. Within STEM this has to be developed in a way that understands the drivers of funding, recognition, and reward. These parts of the current system can make it difficult to implement changes that would improve workforce equity. Through policy and strategic oversight, the UK Government should address ways to redevelop and change the wider STEM system so that reward and recognition structures don’t actively bias against minoritized groups. Metrics associated with these structures must be broader and include recognition of inclusive leadership, particularly as part of UK Government STEM research funding.
3. What we learn from this pandemic could be how the actions and policies we put in place for emergency equitable assessments of research, careers, outputs can be used as a permanent fixture of the STEM sector. We have an opportunity get this right by reviewing what has and hasn’t been successful in this high stress crisis moment. Changes we see to the workforce in the short- medium and long- term from now from will show where the system was weak already (in terms of inclusion) and the pandemic has exacerbated inequalities. We cannot ignore these and must commit to long-term sector-wide action. This should be driven and resourced by the UK Government.
4. There is a need for stable and consistent commitments to equality, equity, diversity and inclusion across the entirety of the STEM sector that is not reliant on individual champions and builds solid pipelines. The UK R&D roadmap is an opportunity to embed policy and action from a top-down perspective. This needs to be developed with the STEM sector through collaborative and collective goals (similarly to our approach to change with EDIS) to legitimise decisions and actions.

Question responses

(read the APPG call for evidence or visit the APPG inquiry homepage)

1. What are the demographics of STEM workers in your organisation or sector? Are there gaps in the quality of evidence, monitoring or reporting?

As a coalition of organisations, we have encouraged our members to share their diversity monitoring data with this inquiry at the aggregate level. We also encourage our members to be transparent with their demographic data and publish this openly.

The goals for demographic data collection should be to use the data as one of many indicators of progress towards an inclusive and equitable STEM sector, and to have good enough data that new research questions can be asked of it.

Methods of demographic data collection (practice/definitions/approaches) vary greatly across the sector, causing multiple limitations to data use. Standardised good practice and a demographic data collection strategy should be developed and shared across the STEM sector and should look to include the relevant job level, job type and funding information that is specific to STEM.

The UK government should co-produce (with the STEM sector) and invest in guidance, tools and/or platforms for best practice in data collection and sharing to standardise this activity across the STEM sector. The UK Government could initially lead a conversation with the sector as to which approach would be most useful. An example from EDIS and Wellcome Trust of where this has been successful is our published Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY) question guidance.

The UK R&D Roadmap offers the opportunity for a centralised approach to data collection to be embedded as part of the wider People and Culture strategy. A centralised approach would allow data to be collated and reported at a sector-wide level, have a nuanced understanding of the STEM sector reflected in the questions asked, and provide a greater opportunity to report on intersectionality.

A centralised approach to demographic data collection would need to be co-developed by the STEM community (individuals and organisations) and the UK Government to better reflect barriers faced by individuals and groups as well as the skills and needs of the sector.

A centralised strategy for demographic data collection and reporting should include dedicated resource for this process for the sector to reduce any potential additional burden on organisations.

We have focused here on quantitative demographic data, however the value of qualitative data that sits alongside this should not be understated. Accounts of individuals’ experiences, including those describing how the intersections of multiple diversity characteristics impact individuals, are essential to better understanding barriers to inclusion and equity. Any future demographic data collection policy should ensure parity of esteem between quantitative and qualitative data.

The issues that could be resolved by a centralised and standardised approach can be summarised as follows:

• Poor data quality caused by low response rates: There are many reasons for low response rates to demographic data collection efforts, including lack of clarity on how the data will be used, survey fatigue, complicated systems or surveys, and fear of discrimination.
• Poor data comparability/harmonisation: Data collection varies greatly across the sector, including what and how questions are asked, how results are reported and who is asked to submit data.
• Poor data analysis: Data is often analysed in isolation, not taking into consideration intersectionality, and not all organisations have the resource, capacity or expertise to deliver a complete data collection and analysis report annually.
• Poor data granularity: Many organisations struggle to report on demographic data in any meaningful way due to the chance of individual identification where there is low representation. Where organisations can’t report because numbers are too low, they use umbrella terms like “BAME”, grouping together individuals with very different experiences, and which ignore the impact of intersecting identities. Poor data granularity is a problem in the STEM sector in part because it has many small organisations, and multiple demographic groups are poorly represented, leading to unreportable figures.

2. Where is there inequity across the different protected characteristics and how are different communities impacted across different:

• STEM disciplines or sectors/subsectors
• types of organisation (e.g. private, public, non-profit)
• type of STEM activity (e.g. academic research, education, engagement, commercial, funding)
• job levels and/or qualification.

There are many reports examining inequality in the STEM workforce across protected characteristics. These reports have looked at the impact of protected characteristics on STEM primarily in isolation. Where commonalities exist in negative experiences (e.g. exclusive cultures, discrimination, barriers to career progression), the culture, policies and structures of the STEM sector should be examined to understand how they enable or contributes to these inequities. Characteristics of the STEM sector that are known to contribute to negative experiences include the impact of short-term contracts, pressure to publish, a focus on measuring ‘scientific excellence’ and productivity metrics.

In addition, more attention must be given to the barriers and inequity experienced by people with overlapping diversity characteristics. Socioeconomic status and geographic location are not protected characteristics but should be a considered in response to this APPG inquiry. The UK Equality Act 2010 also uses outdated language around gender reassignment, and all gender identities should be considered in this analysis and discussion.

3. Where are there evidenced inclusive behaviours and policies within different organisations, subsectors, sectors and countries on:

• Recruitment; and/or
• Retention

Multiple reports have been published on barriers in recruitment and retention for different groups. However, there has been a lack of coordinated action on the recommendations listed in each. There is limited evidence of inclusive policies in the UK STEM sector as outlined in the Equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation UK & International reviews (UKRI and Advance HE, summarised by EDIS). Wider culture changes are necessary to attract diverse talent to STEM, including redefining excellence and moving away from individual prestige as a measure of success.

Further recommendations for inclusive policies and behaviours are included in the following pieces of work:

• LIBRA RECRUITMENT HANDBOOK: Inclusive, Transparent and Unbiased Recruitment Processes (EU LIBRA)
• The Broken Pipeline – Barriers to Black PhD Students Accessing Research Council Funding (Leading Routes)
• Staying Power: The career experiences and strategies of UK Black female professors (Nicola Rollock)
• Qualitative research on barriers to progression of disabled scientists (CRAC) and Disability STEM data for students and academic staff in higher education 2007/08 to 2018/19 (Jisc) (The Royal Society)

4. Are there policies or activities undertaken by the UK Government, or its agencies, that advance or inhibit equity and inclusive cultures within the STEM workforce?

• Where could policy change or sector action lead to addressing the equity of opportunity within the UK’s STEM workforce?

The STEM sector is shaped by the mechanisms of funding, recognition and reward, both at the institutional and individual level. The way we value the culture of the system we work in will be crucial for improving its inclusivity, equity and therefore diversity.

The UK Government or its agencies’ actions should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the STEM sector. It is essential that any policies and actions to promote equity within the STEM workforce are part of a collaborative and coordinated movement with shared goals, and with organisations acting where each can have the greatest impact.

This is the approach we have used for EDIS and we welcome further collaborative opportunities to align diversity, inclusion, people and culture strategies that look to change the STEM research system itself rather than retrofitting policies and people into a non-inclusive structure.

5. What are the impacts of COVID-19 on equity for STEM workers (including job and income security, contract type etc) in the short- and medium-term? Which communities, groups, organisations or sectors are being most impacted?

Multiple EDIS members have conducted surveys with their staff and/or members to understand the impact of COVID-19 on personal resilience, mental health and wellbeing, careers and research:

• The impact of COVID19 on medical research careers beyond the immediate term: A report of a workshop held on 15 July 2020 by The Academy of Medical Sciences
• COVID-19: the impact on molecular bioscience researchers report from the Biochemical Society
• The AMRC survey of charity funded scientists
• The Royal Society of Biology survey of biosciences researchers
• The Physiological Society 2020 members survey

STEM research and academia have primarily relied on metrics of productivity and associated measurable outputs as markers of success (in lieu of profitability). People working within this system that rewards ‘amount of work’ have been hugely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures.

Measurable outputs and productivity metrics have historically been defined in academia and research by those in power who have benefitted from this system and/or have been able to navigate it. The impact of the pandemic and lockdown has inequitably affected people, particularly those already disadvantaged by this approach to reward (e.g. those who cannot maintain the same level of working hours or who have not been afforded flexibility).

EDIS members and their communities have discussed job instability as an issue that has further exacerbated existing inequalities. Short-term contracts and the reliance on pre-funded research to gain further funding are incompatible with the flexible approach to work that has been necessary during this pandemic, within the limitations of government restrictions and remote working. These more precarious roles have particularly affected Early Career Researchers. The Government’s R&D roadmap must consider what type of culture this traditional mode of funding perpetuates, and whether it is still relevant and beneficial to the STEM workforce and research itself.

6. What are the implications and opportunities of new policies and employer action in the next 5-10 years following COVID-19 and Brexit? What will the future impacts be for communities, groups, organisations or sectors?

COVID-19 has demonstrated the need for greater flexibility in the workplace and the feasibility of providing this; this can be a learning point for employers in years to come. The actions and policies we put in place to mitigate inequality as a result of the pandemic should become permanent fixtures of the STEM sector. In STEM, this would include equitable assessments of research outcomes and careers, as well as broadening or redefining research outputs and excellence.

Creating inclusive policies from this point forward across the sector will require a focus on flexibility to support people in different scenarios whilst maintaining a transparent and consistent approach. Inclusive policies will need enough flexibility for situations that might not ordinarily occur, which is why it’s essential to involve the communities that will rely on and benefit from these policies – the STEM workforce – in their development.

Where we see changes to the STEM workforce in the short-, medium- and long- term due to the impact of COVID-19, we see where the system was weak already in terms of inclusion. This pandemic has exacerbated many inequalities at a sector-wide level, with the extreme and sudden nature of this emergency meaning these inequalities are impossible to ignore. Now, STEM needs stable and consistent commitments to progressing equality, diversity and inclusion at an organisation and government level, that are not reliant on individual champions and agendas.

This submission was prepared by Lilian Hunt, Erika Loggin, Martin Smith & Lauren Couch

You can read all of the evidence submissions to this inquiry on the British Science Association’s website, including from the following EDIS members:

• Association of Medical Research Charities
• Daphne Jackson Trust
• Royal Society of Biology
• Society for Applied Microbiology
• Wellcome
• You can download The Academy of Medical Sciences’ APPG response which is also available on the publications pages of their website
• The British Pharmacological Society’s full response is also available on their website
• EDIS also contributed to the evidence roundtable exploring the question “How does the UK Government advance and inhibit equity and inclusive cultures within the STEM workforce?” You can read the summary here.