Diversity and inclusion: a reflection

Simona Cerrato
Aug. 21, 2024, 12:39 p.m.

It is true that science is a world open to everybody, where people are able to work together in a collaborative way regardless of factors that in other areas of their life could represent insurmountable barriers. Let’s think of great international collaborations, such as CERN, where thousands of technicians, researchers, administrators work side by side, and also of small research centres and laboratories: they are places where nobody cares about the language the neighbour speaks, or which clothes she wears or what she eats for breakfast (cappuccino and brioche or curry shrimp). Everyone is driven towards a common goal by using a transparent and shared method, in a mostly disinterested way in their own personal gain.

All true, but... there are many great "buts".

Indeed, it is not true that science is a neutral place. Science, in all times, has been the expression of a culture and a dominant class. And there are not few examples of a science that has bowed to the vision of time to demonstrate sometimes the supremacy of whites or the inferiority of women or the predisposition to crime according to facial morphology. Science and its applications can be racist, misogynistic, colonialist, heteronormative or discriminatory in many other ways.

Nowadays science has extended its field of interests and influence as never before. But are we sure that today’s science seen from the future would appear as free and open to everyone’s contribution, or rather informed, at least partly, to a mainstream thought or to economic and political interests?

Not only that: many studies on the public perception of science show that many groups of people do not feel at all included in the (undoubted) benefits that science brings. They don’t see the positive effects of science and technology in their lives. And even fewer are those who have access to higher education that allows, among other things, access to a career in research. For us who breathe science every day, these realities are completely invisible unless an effort is made to include them in our field of vision.

Participative science and citizen science are also directly affected by this issue, because they can play an active role in giving voice to the people, and can prove to be inspiring, relevant and educational in both affective and cognitive terms.

Many studies have been conducted to understand how to tackle social inclusion in science and technology, many projects have been carried out, and a considerable amount of money has been spent; however science participation continues to show an uneven pattern. Science and science related activities, including citizen science — even if meant for everybody — are in fact enjoyed by a restricted share of people. 

Even if we are not in the position to change our societies on a large scale, we can promote significant changes in our range of actions. To do so we have to develop a strategy to guide you through your journey. The keywords to direct us are: recognition, respect and value.

Recognition

The world is a diverse place, populated by unique people. That’s a fact. However we can group people and identify some common criteria helping us to ask them the right questions and keep our eyes open for diversity. The diversity wheel represents the various dimensions of diversity which, combined, influence our behaviours, beliefs, values, expectations and experiences. 

Diversity wheel: the centre of the wheel shows one's permanent or visible internal dimensions. The outer ring shows acquires dimension that may change over one's lifetime.

Respect

Often, even with the best of intentions, initiatives intending to be inclusive are similar to a crusade of assimilation, a sort of scientific evangelization that starts from two assumptions. The first one is a clear division between “us” and “them”, also deeply embedded in the language we use. The second is that we consider the lack of participation due to a deficit on their part and not to a lack of attention on our part. We often hear the definition of “hard to reach public”. But are they really that hard to reach? Or is it exactly the opposite? We are the ones who are hard to reach.

If people don’t participate, maybe they have good reasons. Maybe not participating or not attending can be a decision (perhaps suffered, but nevertheless a decision) because that activity, that program, that project represents only a part, always the same, of culture, history, knowledge, and this part is not at all representative of all. The sense of estrangement and alienation — that is the feeling of being an “outsider” — is a powerful deterrent to participation. 

Value

Don't pretend you know how others who have completely different life experiences can feel in a certain situation. In order for interculturality and inclusiveness to become intrinsic to your activities, and not just a false label, it is important to reflect on one's own prejudices and confront oneself with others that are as varied as possible. You don’t have to change your public to fit in your program, but you have to change your structure, environment, decision making process, evaluation procedure, staff, etc. in order to be inclusive, creating a welcoming a space where everybody feels at ease and can say, “yes this is done for me and with me”. 

The final and summarising remark is: not everyone must participate, rather everyone should have the same chance to participate.

Language issues

Difficult, hard to reach, underprivileged, excluded, marginalised, socially disadvantaged” are terrible words that we would never like to be pinned to us. There is a general concern about the language we use in defining our audiences: the identification as “difficult”, “excluded”, “hard to reach”, can have strong negative implications — even if used respectfully and carefully — resulting as discriminating and diminishing. Nevertheless, it is important to also be aware of a truly existing disadvantage in order to step in with actions to reduce or mitigate the consequences on people's lives.