Summary of discussion: Increasing visibility of queer experiences and connection of queer scientists
TaMIS met to discuss queer experiences in STEM and how we can improve queer experiences at Penn State. The meeting was attended by 9 participants and involved a discussion among students and faculty at Penn State about visibility and inclusivity for queer scientists in the life sciences.
Ideas discussed
Queer engagement in the sciences
Feeling safe and accepted
How to move away from “rainbow-washing”?
Participation in initiatives like the Rainbow Science Network can help show visible support
Awareness of programs like this are limited among graduate students
Relationship between personal identity and science identity
Hard to feel like a scientist when there appear to be no scientists like you
LGBTQA+ groups at Penn State
Mainly undergraduate student – focused
Graduate and older groups have become inactive
Is there space for an LGBT/DEI officer in existing organizations?
GWIS recently added a formal DEI committee to their organization
Retaining queer scientists
Visible support without “rainbow-washing”
Support is difficult in the face of student groups spreading hateful messaging at Penn State
“Pray the Gay Away” signs in the HUB
Yiannopoulos, Proud Boys, etc.
Combatting biases of those at Penn State
Data is not enough – experiences from women in STEM
How to evaluate our own biases?
Even if aware of the biases, some may not know what to do
What training is available?
Feeling of community
Mentorship
Connection with a mentor who is like you
Actionable items:
Raising awareness of programs like the Rainbow Science Network
Developing case study or role-play scenarios for faculty to discuss during faculty meetings
Possible scenarios
You overhear a student . . .
You are aware of a colleague who . . .
You recognize XX biases within yourself . . .
Already space for such activity within BMB faculty meetings – can space be created for other departments?
Summary of discussion: Acknowledgement of sovereignty of and compensation for indigenous data
TaMIS met to discuss indigenous data sovereignty – the idea that indigenous peoples should have control over data derived from them or their lands. The meeting was attended by 14 participants and involved a discussion among students, faculty, and staff at Penn State about acknowledgement and ownership of indigenous data or data derived from indigenous lands or knowledge.
Ideas Discussed
Awareness of data sovereignty of indigenous groups is lacking at Penn State
Few resources or precedents in place for how Penn State researchers can navigate indigenous data
There are some efforts to return artifacts to indigenous peoples at PSU natural history collections/museums
How much is indigenous data worth? (“How much would you be willing to spend”)
A fee would result in inequity and bias towards ‘richer’ institutions or research groups who could pay to access the data
Other ‘fees’ could be benefits that your research brings communities, sharing knowledge gained etc.
Tension between open data and data sovereignty
Data can be commercialized, but the people that data was derived from often receive no benefit
This affects both indigenous groups and others
Goal is to maintain open data while acknowledging, respecting, and benefiting those the data came from
Local Contexts may be a route for this
Allows researchers to partner with indigenous groups (e.g. taking samples from indigenous lands/waters)
Currently very small and very poorly occupied
Actionable Items:
Provide awareness of projects like Local Contexts which seek to link researchers and indigenous peoples to allow indigenous people more control over data derived from them
Discussion with Dr. Sarah Davies, led by Eric Crandall
Summary of discussion: Moving beyond performative inclusiveness
TaMIS met with Dr. Sarah Davies, lead author of the recent paper in PLoS Biology: “Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science” to discuss how to value scientific contributions that go beyond publications and citations.The meeting was attended by 17 participants and contained a mixture of Q&A with Dr. Davies and a discussion between people from Penn State about issues in the current metrics for evaluating success and how to create change at Penn State.
Ideas discussed
Diversity & inclusion are slowly increasing within ECoS and in the sciences generally but not fast enough.
Much support for Justice, equity, diversity and inclusive (JEDI) policies and practices is performative at Penn State:
There is emphasis on recruiting professors and graduate students from diverse backgrounds, and those who work to increase diversity in the sciences, but little support for their JEDI activities after recruitment
Additionally, individuals from underrepresented backgrounds are often expected to start or lead diversity initiatives once they arrive, which is an unfair burden
Multidimensional mentorship is an excellent way to support individuals beyond recruitment
Current model is PI as the primary mentor
Networks of mentors can make up for individual needs not met by PI
Seemingly not enough action or money put into JEDI initiatives (i.e. if there are changes happening, it is not apparent to junior faculty and graduate students)
Not enough incentive to initiate and participate in activities that would improve JEDI:
Faculty
Little incentive for tenured professors
JEDI work is actually discouraged as time/resources spent on JEDI activities are considered lost to research, teaching or university service
DEI is under-emphasized on FARs (Faculty Activity Reports)
Graduate students
As with faculty, JEDI work is discouraged as time/resources spent on JEDI activities are not rewarded
At Boston University, students can include large JEDI activities as a chapter in their thesis
Lab Compacts should be encouraged as a way to clearly establish laboratory and academic expectations for graduate students from communities that don’t often send students to graduate school, and are not aware of the “hidden curriculum” of graduate school.
General
JEDI activities are only taken up as “extras” without proper acknowledgement or compensation
There are no awards for JEDI activities other than ECoS Diversity Awards (and there is nothing written on the website about why people won)
Low Awareness at Penn State
Little awareness of JEDI resources by many students
Resources are explained to new students, but not reinforced to others
Actionable items:
Multidimensional mentorship network
Collaborative effort across all life sciences at Penn State
Link mentors and mentees from different programs/departments/colleges to discuss aspects of their identities/lives/career paths
