Challenging social structures and changing research cultures

Academia can be a rewarding place to work, but not always and not for everybody. Precarity, inequality, and discrimination are stubbornly persistent, and bullying and harassment can make for a toxic environment. In the UK, a range of scientific organisations and funders are addressing these problems by emphasising the need for positive research culture to promote quality scholarship. In 2018, a conference convened by the Royal Society of London, UK, explored the cultures necessary to support excellent research andResearchers,[1] following on from work in 2014 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on the culture of scientific research in the UK.[2] In September, 2019, the Wellcome Trust announced a new aim to #ReimagineResearch, highlighting the need to shift research culture in a direction beneficial and fairer to all.[3]

As humanities scholars and social scientists concerned with the social and ethical dimensions of biomedicine and health, we welcome this attention to the working environment of research. We agree with the Director of the Wellcome Trust, Jeremy Farrar, that research cultures need to be kinder.[3] It is timely and crucial that funders and universities take public positions on the problems that can emerge when narrow ideas of “excellence” are pursued above all else. These problems range from the bullying and harassment to the routine undermining, devaluing, and neglect of many academic and professional services staff whose contributions are vital to the generation of new knowledge.[4] These problems often exist hand-in-hand with a culture of long working hours that ignores the rest of life, especially caring responsibilities that disproportionately affect women.[5] Such a culture can extend into life beyond work—for example, when early-career researchers are expected to contribute to research, writing, and engagement even after their contracts have concluded. These issues can lead to stress, burnout, and illness that affect the individual and the wider working environment.[6,7]

While promoting a positive culture of research is extremely important, it is vital that in doing so academics, institutions, and funders directly engage with the issue of social structure— ie, the institutionalised arrangements and social practices around which cultures are patterned. Structural discrimination persists even while individuals might think that their own actions are above reproach. Examples are numerous, including the disadvantages still experienced by women, transgender and non-binary researchers, people of colour, working-class academics, and people with disabilities.[8] Systemic disadvantage and structural discrimination pervade the social norms of research. We need to be kind, to be reflective of our own behaviours and attitudes, and call out harmful practices in others. But we also need to find better ways to work together, and to create new norms of practice and novel institutional processes.

We support initiatives in the UK that are advocating change, calling universities to account, and promoting equality. For instance, since 2011, the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) has rolled out restrictions to its different funding schemes that require applicant departments to have achieved at least a Silver Award in an Athena SWAN assessment (the Athena SWAN Charter aims to address gender inequality in UK universities).[9] In 2018, the Wellcome Trust took decisive action through a new policy on bullying and harassment that stated “all people…involved in Wellcome-funded activities should be able to work in an environment where everyone is treated, and treats others, fairly and with respect”.[10] Still, more can be done.

For a start, more protections are needed for those who report cases of bullying and harassment. In addition to establishing clear and meaningful mechanisms of reporting, institutions need to find more effective ways to deal with the unreported but observed and known about behaviours that should not be tolerated. The degree to which these are patterned by privilege will be noticeable to many who work within academia. For example, verbal and physical actions that would never be tolerated by early-career researchers can be ignored or even accepted when undertaken by senior-level individuals. Such behaviours are a reminder of how forms of structural discrimination intersect and can be created by institutions.[11] Furthermore, universities need to keep in mind how personally and often professionally debilitating it can be for systemically disadvantaged individuals to speak up about microaggressions or overt discrimination, let alone pursue a formal complaint.[12] This problem is exacerbated when more structurally privileged colleagues do not recognise their own and others’ words and actions to be dismissive or derogatory.[13]

The accumulation of prestige, and accompanying professional and monetary reward, is usually related to success in winning large grants and publishing in high-impact journals. This research culture persists despite initiatives like the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) that seeks to move away from these kinds of measures. Why do we need to shift away from classic metrics? In part, because social structures impact on who can be successful on this basis. We know that people who do not have caring responsibilities, who do not emphasise academic citizenship, and who expect their team-members to work beyond their contracted limits are more likely to be “successful” on the basis of these metrics alone. Funders and universities need to recognise and reward citizenship, including community engagement, teamwork, and the emotional and practical labour that go into research and which are more often done by more junior staff and by women.[14] Relatedly, research teams, including professional services staff, rather than only individuals, need to be rewarded for excellence—irrespective of how this is defined. Tackling personal bias and structural discrimination within systems of assessment and recognition is key for a more just distribution of reward.

The adverse effects of a drive to narrow notions of “excellence” are felt unevenly and can exacerbate existing inequalities. If we do not consider and challenge the role and impacts of social and institutional structures in patterning research cultures, we risk creating yet more disadvantage. Those with least power will unfairly bear the responsibilities for cultural change, speaking up, and challenging and ameliorating the very disadvantages that they directly experience. Universities should work tirelessly to overcome rather than mirror—or, indeed, increase—wider social divisions including in how we do research. We all have a part to play here. While academia and funders alone cannot overcome all systemic inequalities, we can and should call our institutions and ourselves to account.