Led by Corrine Smolen

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
  • More in a proposal here
• Summarize JEDI resources available at Penn State
  • A “need-to-know” fact sheet easily available online
  • Shorter and simpler than program-specific handbook resources
• Organize a faculty workshop to develop lab compacts