Skip to main content
NCBI home page
American Journal of Epidemiology logoLink to American Journal of Epidemiology
. 2024 Jun 11;194(6):1794–1799. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwae104

Representation and inclusion among members and affiliates of the Society for Epidemiologic Research: findings from the 2021 diversity and inclusion survey

David J X González 1,✉, Brooke S Staley 2,3, Sarah B Andrea 4, Elizabeth A DeVilbiss 5, David S Fink 6, Courtney Peña 7, Domonique M Reed 8, Mary V Díaz Santana 9, Luther-King O Fasehun 10, A J Alvero 11, Obafemi Babalola 12, Victor Puac-Polanco 13,14, Caroline A Thompson 15, Cara L Frankenfeld 16, Lindsay Fernández-Rhodes 17,18, David S Lopez 19, Hoda S Abdel Magid 20; on behalf of the Society for Epidemiologic Research Diversity and Inclusion Committee
PMCID: PMC13070526  PMID: 38863127

Representation and inclusion are stated priorities for many scientific and professional organizations, including the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER), which was founded in 1967 with the intention of bringing together epidemiologists across career stages and specialties.1,2 Representation and inclusion are necessary for fostering safe and equitable educational and professional environments, recruiting future generations of researchers and practitioners, and addressing critical public health questions. However, there has been persistent underrepresentation and systemic exclusion of marginalized groups in the sciences, including epidemiology,2-12 which are symptoms of interpersonal and structural racism, classism, sexism, ableism, heteronormativity, religious-based discrimination, and other dimensions of marginalization.13,14 To advance SER’s goals, the Diversity and Inclusion Committee has sought to characterize representation and inclusion among SER members and affiliates through surveys conducted in 2018 and 2021.

In this study, we assessed trends in representation within SER, made comparisons with relevant benchmarks, and discussed barriers to inclusion. In the 2018 baseline survey, many groups were underrepresented relative to the US population, particularly transgender individuals, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx people, and first-generation college students.11 Moreover, women and people with certain racial/ethnic and religious identities were less likely to participate in SER activities or to report feeling welcomed. This letter provides primary findings from an updated assessment of representation and inclusion among SER members and affiliates and situates the experiences of SER members in broader literatures on diversity and inclusion. The complete report, including a more detailed discussion of recommendations informed in part by survey respondents, is available on the SER website15 and eScholarship Repository.16

Methods

We invited SER members and affiliates (former members and individuals who had participated in SER activities) to participate in an online survey between May and September 2021. The survey was adapted from the version administered in 201811 and comprised sociodemographic questions across several domains, including individual, educational, career, and institutional, as well as perceptions of inclusion in SER. To compare representation in SER with the field of epidemiology more broadly, we obtained demographic data on race/ethnicity from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) for all faculty and US citizen students attending US-based institutions. To compare representation among survey respondents born or residing in the United States with US population diversity, we obtained nationally-representative sociodemographic data from the 2020 census, with the addition of data on representation of Middle Eastern/North African individuals from the Los Angeles Times17 and sexual/gender minorities from the Williams Institute at UCLA.18 To examine academic institutional diversity, we used data from the 2021-2022 US News and World Report (USNWR) Global University Rankings, which appraised 1750 institutions globally and ranked them based on peer assessments and bibliometric indicators.19 We also identified which universities met the criteria for Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).

We (D.J.X.G. and V.P.P.) translated the present article to Spanish (Appendix S1), the second most commonly spoken language among respondents. We convened the full authorship team to discuss our positionality and wrote a collective statement (Appendix S2), as the positionality of researchers can influence the choice of topic, epistemological framing, ontology, methodological approaches, connection to participants, and communication of findings.20,21 The survey instrument is included as Appendix S3.

Results

There were 1148 respondents to the 2021 survey; 79.3% were current SER members, 15.1% were former members, and 5.6% had no membership history but participated in SER-sponsored events (Table 1). The 2018 survey had 631 respondents. Between 2018 and 2021, there were increases in the proportion of survey respondents who were Hispanic/Latinx (8.9% in 2018, 10.0% in 2021) and Asian/South Asian (17.1%, 18.5%). The proportion of Black/African American (10.2%, 7.7%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1.9%, 0.6%) respondents decreased, although the number of respondents from these groups increased. Among SER affiliates residing in the United States, compared with the general US population, there was underrepresentation of people who identified as Hispanic/Latinx (8.4% in SER, 18.5% in the United States) and Black/African American (8.6%, 13.4%) (Table S1). While there was little change in the proportion of female or male respondents, there was greater representation from nonbinary (0.2% in 2018, 1.0% in 2021) and transgender individuals (0.2%, 1.3%) (Table 1). The proportion of bisexual (4.3% in 2018, 6.4% in 2021) and queer (0.6%, 9.0%) individuals increased. There was also growth in representation of first-generation college students (12.8%, 20.9%). The most frequent countries of birth or residence for SER affiliates were the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, and India. The proportion of respondents who speak a language other than English at home also increased (17.6%, 27.6%). Concerning disability, 3.8% of respondents indicated a physical disability in the 2018 survey, and in the 2021 survey, 2.0% indicated that they require disability-related accommodations.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for respondents to the 2021 and 2018 diversity and inclusion surveys,a as well as the 2021 and 2018 membership surveys (representing all Society for Epidemiologic Research members)

Measure 2021 Survey 2018 Survey 2021 Membership 2018 Membership
No. 1148 631 3494 1631
Gender identity, %
 Female 70.0 69.4 66.1 65.7
 Male 28.6 29.5 33.9 34.3
 Nonbinary 1.0 0.2
 Another gender not listed 0.3 0.6 0.6
 No response 0.1 0.2 0
Gender alignment
 Transgender 1.3 0.2
 Cisgender 98.2 99.3
 No response 0.5 0.5
Race/ethnicity,b %
 Hispanic or Latina/o/x of any race 10.0 8.9 5.2 5.5
 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.1 1.3 0.2
 Asian or South Asian 18.5 17.1 20.9 19.0
 Black or African American 7.7 10.2 8.4 7.1
 Middle Eastern or North African 3.0 2.5
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.6 1.9 0.1
 White 68.6 67.8 53.3 61.7
Sexual orientation, %
 Asexual 0.4 0.2
 Bisexual 6.4 4.3
 Gay or lesbian 7.0 7.4
 Heterosexual 82.3 78.0
 Pansexual 0.8 0.6
 Queer 9.0 0.6
 Questioning 0.1
 Another orientation not listed 0.2 1.7
 No response 2.0 7.2
Highest degree obtained
 Bachelor’s 2.2
 Master’s 24.0 25.4
 Doctorate 70.7 66.6
 No response 3.1 8.0
First-generation college student
 Yes 20.9 12.8
 No 75.4 86.2
 No response 0.7 1.0
Country of birthc
 United States 64.4 65.8 81.1
 Outside the United States 31.3 29.3 18.9
 No response 4.4 4.9 0.1
Speak non-English language at home
 Yes 27.6 17.6
 No 72.4 80.4
 No response 2.1
Open in a new tab

aData on sexual orientation, language use, and several specific racial/ethnic identity were not collected in all membership surveys.

bRace/ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive; survey respondents could select all that applied.

cWe provide more detailed information on country of birth or country of residence in Table S3.

There was an increase in respondents’ perceptions of diversity of ideas at SER, but a decrease in the proportion who felt that SER was inclusive or diverse. In both surveys, individuals from a religious group felt less welcomed; given the sensitivity of this issue, we elected not to disclose which group. Compared with women, men had more positive perceptions of attempts to feel welcomed, feel comfortable sharing opinions, that members accept diversity, that early-career researchers were included, that members communicate respectfully, and that there were opportunities for collaboration, with the highest sense among White men. White individuals also were more likely to report positive changes concerning the extent they felt welcomed and more positive perceptions of the diversity of institutions represented at SER than other respondents.

Among the 815 survey respondents with academic affiliations, 54.0% were affiliated with institutions in the highest-ranked quartile of the USNWR Global University Ranking distribution (higher-ranked), and 8.2% were affiliated with institutions in the lowest-ranked quartile (lower-ranked). In both the 2018 and 2021 surveys, over a quarter of respondents were affiliated with 8 higher-ranked US academic institutions (Table S2). Participants affiliated with lower-ranked institutions were more likely to be first-generation college students (35.2% vs. 16.4% in higher-ranked) (Table S3). Lower-ranked institutions were more likely to be publicly funded, in non-urban settings, or outside the United States (Table S4). Fewer than 1% of respondents were affiliated with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Fourteen percent of respondents were at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, of whom 10.3% were Hispanic/Latinx.

Among epidemiology students in the ASPPH dataset, there was higher representation of Hispanic/Latinx (11.3% in ASPPH, 8.4% in SER) and Black/African American (12.4%, 8.6%) scholars compared with US-residing SER affiliates (Table S5).

Discussion

In the 2021 survey, we observed increased representation of some groups but persistent underrepresentation and exclusion of certain marginalized groups. Specifically, there was less representation of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx people among SER members compared with these groups’ representation among epidemiology students and the general US population. The proportion of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander individuals in SER was similar to that of the US population. There was low representation of Minority Serving Institution–affiliated scholars and underrepresentation of people with disabilities.22,23 Institutional diversity did not improve substantially between the 2018 and 2021 surveys, with disproportionately high representation of higher-ranked US institutions. This disparity has also been noted for presenters at SER’s Annual Meeting,2 and is likely related to the wide financial disparity between the most well-resourced private universities and public and non-US universities.24

The field of public health, and epidemiology in particular, has grown substantially in recent decades, with some increases in representation from persistently marginalized groups. Between 1992 and 2012, graduates in public health programs have been more diverse than the general population of undergraduate students, with increasing representation from some racially marginalized groups.3-5 However, among epidemiology faculty, there was no change in representation of racially marginalized groups between 2010 and 2020, with persistent underrepresentation of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx individuals.6 Indeed, in the ASPPH dataset, both for students and faculty, there was decreasing representation of Black/African American individuals in increasingly senior roles. With respect to gender, prior work has also found that women are less likely to be last authors on peer-reviewed epidemiology papers, to be cited by colleagues, and to serve in leadership roles in epidemiology journals compared with men.25 An assessment of presenters at SER’s Annual Meeting from 2015-2017 found underrepresentation of women in invited symposia and overrepresentation of presenters from private institutions.2 More work is needed for gender minorities.

Persistent underrepresentation and exclusion of marginalized groups are not unique to epidemiology and occur in other biomedical disciplines. A 2018 study of US medical school faculty found a statistically significant increase in underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals across nearly all medical disciplines between 1990 and 2016, using a novel statistical technique.26 Among registered US nurses, despite slight increases in racial diversity from 2008 to 2018, there have been persistent issues in recruiting and retaining nursing professionals who reflect their diverse patient populations.8,9 A study of diversity among vascular surgeons found that women, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latinx providers were persistently underrepresented at all career stages, with notably less diversity in senior positions.10 The Society for Pediatric Anesthesia had disproportionately low representation in more senior positions of racially marginalized people, women, gender minorities, and sexual minorities.27 The exclusion of racially and socioeconomically marginalized people in higher education and the biomedical sciences has been reported in other countries represented in SER.28-34

Exclusion of people with marginalized identities has broad impacts, perpetuating harms to individuals and communities and impairing the quality of the scientific enterprise at large. People from marginalized groups have higher rates of scientific innovation, but the contributions of these individuals are less likely to be recognized, and consequently these scholars are less likely to remain in scientific careers or to obtain research-oriented professorships.35 Misconceptions of the extent of marginalization may exacerbate exclusion of marginalized groups.36

Constraints in our assessment include restriction of ASPPH student data to US citizens attending US institutions. Data specific to public health training outside the United States could elucidate further disparities and barriers. The USNWR Global University Rankings are subject to bias, although we addressed this by comparing institutions by quartile. The survey response rate was lower among men compared with people with other genders, as with other web-based surveys.37 We used the questions on requested accommodations as proxy indicators of disability status; specific questions about disability status and experiences of interpersonal and structural ableism in professional settings would provide more complete and actionable data. Given shifting demographics among the diverse populations epidemiologists serve, future researchers should consider applying statistical measures such as the S-score to assess underrepresentation among trainees and professionals.26 The S-score is a numerical expression of the probability of an observed proportion of representation of, for example, certain racial/ethnic and gender identity groups in a professional setting based on proportion of those groups in the overall population.26

Issues of representation and inclusion are cross-cutting, and SER leadership and members have already undertaken initiatives to address persistent interpersonal and structural barriers. These initiatives include engagement with faculty and trainees at institutions under-represented in SER through the SERvisits program24 and outreach to underrepresented non-US institutions, such as the 2023 SER Mid-Year Meeting at the National Institute of Public Health in Cuernavaca, México. We found that while there is diverse representation across many dimensions of identity, underrepresentation and exclusion persist for certain groups. It may be that the benefits of diversity and inclusion efforts have not yet been realized, that these efforts are ineffective, and that additional barriers or biases remain unaddressed.24,38 Furthermore, as evidenced by the underrepresentation and exclusion of marginalized groups in other biomedical disciplines,2,3,26 broader structural issues influence the experiences of current and prospective SER members. Additional careful work is needed to understand experiences of marginalization and exclusion within SER and the professional spaces we inhabit. Longitudinal mixed-methods studies, incorporating quantitative survey data and qualitative free-response or interview data, would improve understanding and better inform future initiatives. More work is needed to understand experiences of people with intersecting marginalized identities, those facing religious-based discrimination, individuals with disabilities, and the diverse experiences of exclusion within racial/ethnic groups.24,39 Collaboration with trained diversity and inclusion scholars can enhance the quality and impact of this work.

Supplementary Material

Web_Material_kwae104
web_material_kwae104.zip (1.2MB, zip)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Helena Archer, Hassan Bokhari, Julia Mewha, and Christopher Navarrete for assistance with data analysis, as well as Suzanne Bevan for administrative support. We are grateful to SER affiliates who participated in the survey. Members of the Society for Epidemiologic Research Diversity and Inclusion Committee: Nadia N. Abuelezam, Amira Aker, Sarah Andrea, Onyebuchi A. Arah, Obefemi Babalola, Lisa Bates, Charles Branas, Monique Brown, Yvette Cozier, Timothy Crawford, Geetanjali Datta, Elizabeth A. DeVilbiss, Mary V. Díaz Santana, Luther-King Fasehun, Lindsay Fernandez-Rhodes, David Fink, Cara L Frankenfeld, Stephen Gilman, David J. X. González, Yueh-Ying Han, Juan Hincapie-Castillo, Dayna A. Johnson, Marynia Kolak, Christina Ludema, Meghan D. Morris, Stefania Papatheodeorou, Marcia Pescador Jimenez, Victor Puac-Polanco, Abhismitha Ramesh, Domonique Reed, Jamaica Robinson, Brooke Staley, Alvin Thomas, Caroline Thompson, Jennifer Weuve, and Mahsa Yazdy (July 2020 to June 2023).

Contributor Information

David J X González, Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.

Brooke S Staley, Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States; Carolina Population Center, The University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States.

Sarah B Andrea, Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, OR 97201, United States.

Elizabeth A DeVilbiss, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.

David S Fink, New York Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, United States.

Courtney Peña, Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.

Domonique M Reed, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.

Mary V Díaz Santana, Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, United States.

Luther-King O Fasehun, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, United States.

A J Alvero, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32601, United States.

Obafemi Babalola, Liberia Field Epidemiology Training Program, African Field Epidemiology Network, Sinkor, Liberia, West Africa.

Victor Puac-Polanco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY 11203, United States; Department of Health Policy and Management, Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY 11203, United States.

Caroline A Thompson, Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States.

Cara L Frankenfeld, Public Health Program, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, United States.

Lindsay Fernández-Rhodes, Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States; Department of Biobehavioral Health, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States.

David S Lopez, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public and Population Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, United States.

Hoda S Abdel Magid, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.

Supplementary material

Supplementary data is available at American Journal of Epidemiology online.

Funding

D.J.X.G. was supported by the Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship and the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship. E.A.D. was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. D.M.R. was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R36MH132489. B.S.S was supported by the Ford Foundation and the Genetic Epidemiology of Heart, Lung, and Blood Traits Training Grant (T32HL129982). Support of L.F.R. to present preliminary results at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research was provided by the Pennsylvania State University, Department of Biobehavioral Health. D.S.F. received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K99DA055724; PI: D.F.). H.S.A.M. received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K99HL161479; PI: H.S.A.M.).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.

Data availability

Primary data that we collected through the representation and inclusion survey data are not available, due to confidentiality. Data from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) are available to member programs and schools, and to others upon request through the ASPPH Data Center (data@aspph.org). Additional data sources used in this analysis are publicly available, including sociodemographic data from the US Census Bureau, UCLA Williams Institute, and the Los Angeles Times.

References

  • 1. Society for Epidemiologic Research . Diversity, equity and inclusion statement. 2020. Accessed March 30, 2023.
  • 2. Nobles  CJ, Lu  Y-L, Andriessen  VC, et al.  A data-based approach to evaluating representation by gender and affiliation in key presentation formats at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1710-1720. 10.1093/aje/kwab080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Leider  JP, Castrucci  BC, Plepys  CM, et al.  Characterizing the growth of the undergraduate public health major: U.S., 1992-2012. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(1):104-113. 10.1177/003335491513000114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Leider  JP, Plepys  CM, Castrucci  BC, et al.  Trends in the conferral of graduate public health degrees: a triangulated approach. Public Health Rep. 2018;133(6):729-737. 10.1177/0033354918791542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Gondwe  T, Herbach  E, Cvitanovich  M, et al.  Racial/ethnic distribution of graduates from doctorate and masters epidemiology degree programs in the United States, 2008 to 2018. Ann Epidemiol. 2021;68:32-36. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2021.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Goodman  MS, Bather  JR, Chu  X, et al.  Racial and ethnic diversity among students, graduates, and faculty in biostatistics and epidemiology, 2010-2020. Public Health Rep. 2023;136(3):546-554. 10.1177/00333549221097653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Goodman  MS, Plepys  CM, Bather  JR, et al.  Racial /ethnic diversity in academic public health: 20-year update. Public Health Rep. 2020;135(1):74-81. 10.1177/0033354919887747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Phillips  JM, Malone  B. Increasing racial/ethnic diversity in nursing to reduce health disparities and achieve health equity. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(suppl 2):45-50. 10.1177/00333549141291S209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Morrison  V, Hauch  RR, Perez  E, et al.  Diversity, equity, and inclusion in nursing: the pathway to excellence framework alignment. Nurs Adm Q. 2021;45(4):311-323. 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Aulivola  B, Mitchell  EL, Rowe  VL, et al.  Ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion in the Society for Vascular Surgery: a report of the Society for Vascular Surgery Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(3):745-756.e6. 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.11.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. DeVilbiss  EA, Weuve  J, Fink  DS, et al.  Assessing representation and perceived inclusion among members in the Society for Epidemiologic Research. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(10):998-1010. 10.1093/aje/kwz281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Lett  E, Murdock  HM, Orji  WU, et al.  Trends in racial/ethnic representation among US medical students. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1910490. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Ðoàn  LN, Bacong  AM, Ma  KPK, et al.  Epidemiologists count: the role of diversity and inclusion in the field of epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(10):1033-1036. 10.1093/aje/kwaa108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Lett  E, Asabor  E, Beltrán  S, et al.  Conceptualizing, contextualizing, and operationalizing race in quantitative health sciences research. Ann Fam Med. 2022;20(2):157-163. 10.1370/afm.2792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. González  DJX, Staley  BS, Andrea  SB, et al.  Representation and Inclusion Among Members and affiliates of the Society for Epidemiologic Research: findings from the 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Survey (SER Full Report) Society for Epidemiologic Research. 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://epiresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/full_report.pdf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 16. González  DJX, Staley  BS, Andrea  SB, et al. Representation and inclusion among members and affiliates of the Society for Epidemiologic Research: findings from the 2021 diversity and inclusion survey (full report). Society for Epidemiologic Research; 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6vm8g67s [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Parvini  S, Simani  E. Are Arabs and Iranians white? Census says yes, but many disagree. Los Angeles Times  2019. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-census-middle-east-north-africa-race/
  • 18. Conron  KJ, Goldberg  SK. Fact Sheet: Adult LGBT population in the United States. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. 2020. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Adult-US-Pop-Jul-2020.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Morse  R, Wellington  S. How U.S. News calculated the 2022-2023 Best Global Universities rankings. U.S. News & World Report. 2022. Accessed November 1, 2022. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/methodology
  • 20. Jafar  AJN. What is positionality and should it be expressed in quantitative studies?  Emerg Med J. 2018;35(5):323-324. 10.1136/emermed-2017-207158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Secules  S, McCall  C, Mejia  JA, et al.  Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: a collaborative inquiry and call to the community. J Eng Educ. 2021;110(1):19-43. 10.1002/jee.20377 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Courtney-Long  EA, Carroll  DD, Zhang  QC, et al.  Prevalence of disability and disability type among adults—United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(29):777-783. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6429a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Reynolds  JM. Three things clinicians should know about disability. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1181-E1187. 10.1001/amajethics.2018.1181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Ahern  J, Kaufman  JS, Werler  MM. Invited commentary: the Society for Epidemiologic Research’s commitment to diversity and equity—pathways to filling the glass. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1727-1729. 10.1093/aje/kwab083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Schisterman  EF, Swanson  CW, Lu  YL, et al.  The changing face of epidemiology: gender disparities in citations?  Epidemiology. 2017;28(2):159-168. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lett  E, Orji  WU, Sebro  R. Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: a longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties. PloS One. 2018;13(11):e0207274. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Reece-Nguyen  TL, Lee  HH, Garcia-Marcinkiewicz  AG, et al.  Diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia: a mixed methods assessment. Paediatr Anaesth. 2023;33(6):435-445. 10.1111/pan.14642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Perrott  L. Higher education staff statistics: UK, 2020/21. 2022. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/01-02-2022/sb261-higher-education-staff-statistics. Accessed December 16, 2022.
  • 29. Reis  M. Fields of study and the earnings gap by race in Brazil. Rev Dev Econ. 2017;21(3):756-785. 10.1111/rode.12292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Valente  RR. The impact of race and social economic status on university admission at the University of São Paulo. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies. 2016;11(2):95-118. 10.1080/17442222.2016.1170955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Valente  RR. The vicious circle: effects of race and class on university entrance in Brazil. Race Ethn Educ. 2017;20(6):851-864. 10.1080/13613324.2016.1150824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Harper  W, Buren  Y, Ariaeinejad  A, et al.  Equity and game-theory strategies to promote gender diversity and inclusion in an academic health science Centre. CJC Open. 2021;3(12 Suppl):S53-S61. 10.1016/j.cjco.2021.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Joshi  KM, Ahir  KV. Higher education in India: issues related to access, equity, efficiency quality and internationalization. Academia. 2019;0(14):70-91 [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Oliveira  W, Soares  BE, Marques  P, et al.  Advancing racial equity in Brazil’s academia. Science. 2022;376(6594):707. 10.1126/science.abq5212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Hofstra  B, Kulkarni  VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez  S, et al.  The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117(17):9284-9291. 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Kraus  MW, Torrez  B, Hollie  L. How narratives of racial progress create barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations. Curr Opin Psychol. 2021;43:108-113. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Smith  WG. Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. San José State University ScholarWorks. 2008. Accessed March 11, 2023. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501717.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Galea  S. Invited commentary: reckoning with our biases in epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1730-1732. 10.1093/aje/kwab085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Marchbanks  PA. Invited commentary: the Society for Epidemiologic Research—striving for equity in our own backyard. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1721-1723. 10.1093/aje/kwab081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Web_Material_kwae104
web_material_kwae104.zip (1.2MB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

Primary data that we collected through the representation and inclusion survey data are not available, due to confidentiality. Data from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) are available to member programs and schools, and to others upon request through the ASPPH Data Center (data@aspph.org). Additional data sources used in this analysis are publicly available, including sociodemographic data from the US Census Bureau, UCLA Williams Institute, and the Los Angeles Times.

Articles from American Journal of Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES