A Systems Change Framework for Evaluating Academic Equity and Inclusion in an Ecology & Evolution Graduate Program

Abstract

Manuscript Purpose/Abstract:Statistics on representation in graduate programs show that, while academia is moving forward in terms of generating diverse cohorts of students and faculty, representation still has not reached parity. These discrepancies in representation are seen at the graduate student level and intensify as academic rank increases. While there have been strides to improve representation through more thoughtful recruitment, a new discussion is emerging around inclusion and retention of under-represented minorities. Inclusive programs are that which center and prioritize support for diverse experiences, identities, career goals, and perspectives actively and continuously from recruitment through graduation. An emerging area of focus for inclusion efforts is graduate student programs. Graduate education programs provide significant opportunities for inclusive programming, and conversely, a program that does not take efforts to improve both diversity and inclusion can often contribute to further disparity in representation. While there are many efforts across programs to address inclusion, there is room for improvement on developing cohesive and effective programming that targets the many areas of needed change in order to improve institutional inclusivity.Here, we argue that graduate education programs should utilize a systems change framework to evaluate areas of progress and need in their program as it relates to inclusion. A systems-change approach emphasizes three levels of changes: explicit change (e.g. policies), semi-explicit change (e.g. power dynamics), and implicit change (e.g. biases). We use the Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (EEB) PhD Program at the University of Texas at Austin in an exercise to (1) identify areas of concern regarding inclusive programming voiced by graduate students and (2) categorize efforts to address these concerns about inclusive programming into a systems change frame, and finish by (3) integrating and evaluating which areas of the systems change framework show the greatest progress and greatest need for the UT EEB graduate program.We acknowledge that the specific examples here are of particular relevance to other EEB programs, as they may see similar patterns in graduate student needs and efforts to address them. But, the exercise itself is certainly not limited to EEB programs. We encourage any graduate program, as well as any departments or even larger institution, to consider undergoing this exercise in order to more effectively address inequity in their own domains.

Graduate student workload: Pandemic challenges and recommendations for accommodations

“…More focus and institutional resources should be invested into the well‐being of the individuals that make up academia, particularly those whose labor is most frequently exploited such as graduate students, post‐doctoral students, non‐tenure‐track faculty, and assistant professors. From a systems‐level perspective, this change should be undertaken by examining potential avenues for explicit change via policies (e.g., salary raises in line with increased costs of living, policies to disincentive and prevent overworking), semi‐explicit change via power dynamics (e.g., increased transparency around academic hierarchies, increased power‐sharing with graduate students), and implicit change via biases (e.g., implicit bias trainings, regular antibias evaluations; Wallace & York, 2020).…”

Intentional mentoring should increase inclusivity in ecology

“…While other natural science disciplines have increased the percentages of demographically minoritized students, ecology remains overwhelmingly white, though the fraction of white women has increased, and now more than 50% of ecology PhDs are awarded to white women (Forrester, 2020;Harris, 2019;O'Brien et al, 2020). However, following graduate school, the fraction of women and people of color in higher-level ecology positions markedly decreases (Bumpus, 2020;Finkelstein et al, 2016;Forrester, 2020;Hekman et al, 2017;Lechuga, 2011, Middendorf, 2014Wallace & York, 2020). Moreover, many people affiliate with more than one identity that affects how they interpret their experiences ecologists (e.g., a woman of color, a nonbinary person with a physical disability).…”

From a crisis to an opportunity: Eight insights for doing science in the COVID‐19 era and beyond

“…How long‐lasting and severe these impacts will be for a typically field‐ and laboratory‐based, international, and collaborative field such as Ecology is still unknown. At the same time, other well‐known issues in academia such as inequalities based on gender (Costa, 2020; Wallace & York, 2020), ethnicity and sociocultural background (Brandt et al., 2020; Dennis et al., 2005), and challenges for researchers in developing countries (Moakofhi et al., 2017; Wanelik et al., 2020) are now exacerbated as a result of the actions to prevent the spread of COVID‐19.…”