Equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts in professional societies: intention versus reaction

Events in society over the last few years that seemingly culminated around June 2020 triggered new and renewed commitments to address systemic inequities that disproportionately affect individuals from specific demographic groups and led to increased efforts centered on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) by academic institutions and professional societies.

Prior to these devastating yet triggering events, some organizations and societies had well-established structures (e.g. committees or dedicated-staff) committed to working on EDI. These organizations were positioned to rapidly respond and appropriately re-direct, renew, and amplify their on-going efforts. However, the reality is that many professional societies reacted to this “new” awareness of systemic inequities by creating and establishing new structures to support EDI activities. While these responses were well-intended, many of the rapid actions taken were not always well-informed or directed and therefore were ineffective at adequately addressing the core issues that created the existing inequitable and exclusive practices and climates in scientific communities.

These reactive responses resulted in a barrage of activities, including workshops, learning groups, and calls for personal commitments, mostly directed at educating non-marginalized individuals occupying spaces of privilege and leadership, to enhance their awareness and understanding of the issues affecting minoritized and excluded groups. Participation in these EDI activities by non-marginalized individuals is often opt-in, with little-to-no accountability or record of substantial change. Therefore, while these activities have had some positive impacts on making individuals from well-represented groups aware of EDI efforts, they have had very little impact in actually improving the conditions for marginalized individuals. Additionally, when formal training or structural overhauls are made mandatory by institutions, this often results in push-back from the non-marginalized individuals who do not recognize the critical need for EDI training, although these individuals are often in leadership or high-ranked positions (Kulik et al., 2007; Duguid and Thomas-Hunt, 2015; National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, 2018). Efforts have also been made to provide platforms for minoritized individuals to recount their negative lived experiences, again in an attempt to provide awareness to their non-marginalized peers. However, continuous rehashing of experiences by underrepresented and marginalized individuals is often traumatic in itself and adds to the emotional toll for those mostly impacted by systemic racism.

In this context, we reflect on how academic institutions and professional societies can be more effective in their EDI efforts toward reducing the negative impacts on marginalized individuals. We believe that a key approach is (1) to be “reflective” and begin by identifying both the specific groups that are excluded/marginalized within the community (e.g. women, Black, indigenous and people of color, LGBTQIA+, international scholars) and the institutional practices and cultures that cause this marginalization and then (2) to be “intentional” about inclusion of these individuals and to initiate tailored transformation focused on equity. We conclude our letter by offering actionable suggestions of how the plant science community can effectively improve EDI efforts.

Reflective assessment

Having a comprehensive understanding that is reflective of all the members that comprise a given community is a critical first step. For example, while women are not underrepresented when considering the biological sciences as a whole, they are still underrepresented in tenured positions in academia and in leadership positions in industry (Cho et al., 2017; Kalaitzi et al., 2017; Lambert et al., 2020) and, in 2019, Black women comprised only ∼2% of tenured faculty in the United States (June and O’Leary. 2021). Identifying these discrepancies requires a detailed analysis of community demographics that includes ranks and roles. Additionally, changes in demographics are not always indicative of successful recruitment or retention, as discrepancies exist in which demographic groups are resigning versus retiring. It is also important to note that to date, statistical data for individuals that identify as LGBTQIA+ are limited; however, it is well understood (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Field and Rajewski, 2021) that these members of our scientific community are often subjected to significant discrimination and inequities that also prevents their success in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) and excludes them from leadership roles.

The exclusion of Latinx and Black scientists in plant sciences is painfully evident. An analysis of PhD degrees granted to US citizens or permanent residents by US institutions in the year 2017 shows that the percentage of Black and Hispanic/Latinx PhD recipients for all fields is lower than their proportion in the US population. While similar numbers are seen when analyzing PhD degrees granted in the life sciences, the subdisciplines associated with plant sciences show an even more evident lack of diversity, with Black and Hispanic recipients obtaining doctoral degrees at a significantly lower rate (χ², P < 0.5) than expected by their share of the US population demographic makeup (Figure 1). While there is concern within the scientific community regarding the unsustainable rate at which PhD degrees in biomedical sciences are awarded in the United States (Alberts et al., 2014), this is not the case in plant-related fields, where the number of PhDs awarded annually has remained relatively constant for the last 20 years (Friesner et al., 2021). Coupled with data from the US Department of Agriculture and US Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows that plant- and agriculture-related fields have seen and are predicted to see significant growth in job opportunities (https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/; https://www.bls.gov/ooh/), the disproportional lack of diversity observed in the plant sciences clearly is not the result of a stagnant field. Rather, it indicates that participation is limited by causes that directly preclude the participation of these marginalized groups. There are several factors that contribute to these exclusionary climates. For example, a general lack of awareness of the importance of plant science research (Friesner et al., 2021) is compounded by stigmas generated by strong associations of agriculture with slavery and exploitation of migrant workers (Carter and Alexander, 2020). In addition, other well-studied exclusionary causes such as implicit and explicit bias that impact hiring and promotion, lack of representation, poor mentorship and the perception that the STEM institutions may not enable sufficient engagement with the distinct values of marginalized scientists (Gibbs et al., 2016; Morris and Washington, 2017), contribute to the attrition of their participation in plant sciences. Given how important many of the crop plants that we study are to Native American, Black, Latinx and international cultures, it is imperative that the plant science community makes substantial, intentional efforts to actually include and engage those communities as part of the broader impacts of our research programs.

Figure 1.

Underrepresentation is more acute in plant sciences than in other scientific fields. Data on PhD recipients were extracted from the Special Report NSF 19-301 (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/). The plant sciences field corresponds to the aggregate of the following categories: agronomy, horticulture science, plant breeding, plant pathology, plant sciences-other, botany, plant pathology, plant physiology, forest biology, forest management, wood science, forestry sciences-other, and plant genetics. The US demographic information was added for comparison and was obtained from “2017 1-year American Community Survey estimates,” US Census Bureau, accessed at https://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-minority-population-data-estimates.html.

Intentional inclusion

These reflective exercises provide us with defined targets, marginalized groups and the barriers that limit their participation, to intentionally develop programmatic activities and systematic changes to increase equity. By definition, “intentionality” means to be deliberate and purposeful. In our context, it means to create the environment that each specific individual needs to thrive, an approach beautifully described by B. Montgomery as groundskeeping (Montgomery, 2020a, 2020b). That is, being intentional is to ask and survey the needs of the affected groups before an activity is planned or actions are taken, and to focus on that group and not be distracted by the feelings and assumptions of non-marginalized individuals. Within our societies, we can ask ourselves “how will this activity directly change the ability of excluded populations to thrive, access resources, and participate in the decision-making processes of the institution on an equal footing with those already in charge?”

Efforts that directly impact the inclusion of diverse marginalized individuals include, for example, cluster hires that specifically recruit minoritized individuals, provide mentors, and foster a supportive environment post-hire. As scientific institutions attempt to diversify, most currently lack the ability to provide professional mentoring and peer support for underrepresented colleagues to help them navigate the unique obstacles they face due to systemic racism, homophobia/transphobia, and xenophobia. Finding mentors may therefore require looking outside our own institutions in the form of consultancies, and it is imperative that mentors are compensated for their time; this requires financial investment by institutions. Cluster hires are also effective as they reduce the feeling of isolation experienced by minoritized individuals (Bhalla, 2019).

While academic institutions can significantly impact participation of underrepresented groups in STEM professions, these wider efforts may not lead to an increase in participation specifically in the plant sciences. We want to emphasize that discipline-specific professional societies are a natural place for inclusion and retention that can have a substantial impact on EDI efforts. This perspective is informed by the works of many others (Morris and Washington, 2017; Hulede, 2018; Segarra et al., 2020) and from our own experiences. As co-authors of this letter, we both previously served on the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) Minority Affairs Committee (now EDI Committee), and each of us has leadership roles in ASPB or other professional societies. Societies are the long-term professional homes of their members, provide longitudinal opportunities for community building that can accompany career steps and provide discipline-specific networking opportunities. However, as noted by Morris and Washington (2017), “organizations do not naturally diversify,” and participation in professional society activities can have positive and negative impacts on marginalized members. Thus, intentionality in our efforts to make professional societies more equitable and inclusive is paramount.

In this final section, we offer recommendations (summarized in Table 1) on how professional societies can enhance the participation and inclusion of marginalized groups, incorporating observations from and recommendations for ASPB and other plant science societies.

Table 1.

Key actionable efforts for professional societies

Mission statements	EDI should be a main tenet of mission statements and strategic plans that guide each society’s structure and activities.
Diverse committees	Ensure that ALL society committees are well diversified, that is include members from marginalized groups in non-EDI committees and include people from well-represented groups on EDI committees to amplify the message.
Mentorship structures	Help members of underrepresented groups create robust scientific and social networks. Follow up on awards, for example to ensure awardees from marginalized groups are connected and engaged with others in the society. Establish long-term mentorship structures to support new members and train mentors to-be to ensure the quality of experience.
Surveys	Conduct anonymous, third-party surveys of the target member groups to help identify specific needs and design effective programs aimed at improving EDI.

The biggest effort from professional societies in this arena historically has been directed at recruitment of members from marginalized groups. However, preparing a welcoming and nurturing environment for these members is a prerequisite to effective recruiting. Using another analogy from B. Montgomery’s book “Lessons from Plants” (Montgomery, 2021), it is necessary first to prepare the soil where seeds will be sown to ensure that new plants will be able to grow to their full potential. It is essential that EDI ideals are incorporated into every activity of a professional society; thus, we suggest that EDI should be a main tenet of mission statements and strategic plans that guide each society’s structure and activities. Another, complementary way to accomplish this goal is to include members of EDI committees on other societal committees (e.g. education, program, and leadership) to ensure integrated efforts and avoid the predominantly siloed structure that is currently common in these organizations. It is also important that EDI committees include people from well-represented groups that can use their position of privilege to amplify the EDI message.

Many professional societies offer awards directed at improving recruitment of participants from marginalized groups at society meetings, such as the Recognition Travel Award (RTA) offered by ASPB. While these awards are highly valuable, the experiences of individual awardees can be improved. Most societies fail to ensure that these individuals are actually included in the meeting. For example, it is not uncommon to find early career scientists from underrepresented groups standing alone at their posters or eating alone; reminding us that being present does not equal being included. Societies need to complement these recruitment efforts by helping members of underrepresented groups create robust scientific and social networks. The most fundamental aspect that needs to be associated with recruitment efforts is the establishment of long-term mentorship structures to support new members, and training mentors to-be to ensure the quality of experience. We need to keep in mind that a multi-mentor system is more effective and that cohorts provide a built-in community of individuals at similar stages in the mentor–mentee continuum. These recruitment efforts will also benefit from partnership with interdisciplinary societies focused on marginalized groups such as the Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) and the National Society for Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences (MANRRS) and with Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges. For collaborations with minority-serving institutions, the relationships should be bidirectional; that is, both the professional society and the college should benefit from it. For all activities, defined goals and assessment methods should be indispensable.

Professional societies should not assume what members of marginalized groups need. Thus, surveys should be conducted by a third-party, designed to be anonymous, and should be implemented before designing specific programs. Current demographic surveys should also be improved to include more options for non-binary/gender-non-conforming individuals. To synergize efforts, collaborations among plant-specific societies are recommended. These collaborations could provide unified resources and amplify their reach.

It is also important to remember that members of marginalized groups are interested in other issues beyond EDI. In fact, even those passionate about and advocating for EDI generally join discipline-specific professional societies because of their affinity for the discipline and their interest to advance their scientific rather than their advocacy careers. Thus, it is essential that members of marginalized groups are not tokenized into EDI committees and are instead included in other general committees/task forces and activities that are essential to the society and would benefit from diverse perspectives. Societies where members from marginalized groups are integrated into leadership structures will then be more attractive to new members from those groups.

Federal agencies have recently recognized the value of professional societies and their role in EDI efforts, reflected in calls for proposals like NSF’s RCN LEAPS and NIH’s MOSAIC UE5. However, plant science-related societies are at a disadvantage when competing with biomedical societies due to the size of the population served and the glamorization of human-centered research. Thus, we close this letter with a plea to NSF, USDA, NIH, and other federal agencies to create funding opportunities specific for EDI-related activities involving professional societies in the plant sciences and related fields, which are essential to human wellbeing and national interests but are less supported.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.