Home

Background

NYU schedule

Global network

Unofficial stories

Diversity

Resources

Get involved

Videos

Growing up in Science special events: Diversity, inclusion, and identity in science

Wed Jun 10, 2020
Anti-racism allyship workshop

Growing up in Science and the Scientist Action and Advocacy Network jointly participated in the #ShutDownSTEM day of action through a workshop on allyship and anti-racism in science. We asked our audience for their comments in the following categories:
  1. (micro-)aggressions experienced
  2. (micro-)aggressions committed (by you or others)
  3. aspects of systemic racism that you find most urgent/actionable
  4. concrete steps you plan to take to be an ally and practice anti-racism
Moderators were Mina Cikara, Nancy Padilla, Yael Niv, and Wei Ji Ma. Documentation of the event:

Friday Aug 30, 2019
Diversity and identity in science: personal narratives

A tradition of the Growing up in Science series is to hold a panel discussion in the August session. Last year, the discussion was titled "Diversity and identity in science: personal narratives". We discussed why we need role models with whom we can personally identify, whether diverse perspectives really make for better science, and whom our research should serve. Clearly, a single session is not sufficient to explore these questions in depth or to keep them alive in the discourse of our communities. Therefore, we are going to address the same themes again, but this year's event is organized by PhD students (Laura Green, Megha Kori, Ionatan Kuperwajs, Owen Marschall, and Camille Rullán) and two panelists will be PhD students. The description below was provided by the organizers. - WJM

Guests:
  • Richard Tsien (Neuroscience Institute)
  • Pablo Ripollés (Psychology and Music)
  • Simón(e) Sun (PhD student in Neuroscience)
  • Naomi López Caraballo (PhD student in Neuroscience)
Moderator: Megha Kori (PhD student in Neuroscience)

While some may view the practice of science as detached from the personal identity of the scientist, it is plain to see that, for almost every researcher, the scientific questions and techniques they pursue are influenced deeply by the individual's social narrative. To further delve into this concept, we have asked scientists from each stage of the academic process to discuss why they pursue the questions they do and how the way they have done science has changed as they have matured. The audience is, of course, encouraged to share their own perspectives and we've included some guiding questions for the discussion:
  1. How do we define which questions are worth pursuing/funding? As heterogeneity in the scientific population has propagated (whether that's defined by socio-economic status, racial/gender identification, cultural context, etc.), there has been a concrete shift in the research questions being asked and the communities being served by those questions.
    • Do your personal experiences influence your research priorities and, if so, how?
    • Which populations are being marginalized by the international research program as it stands today and how can we do better as a community going forward?
    • Should there be different standards for funding allocation and, if so, what needs to change?
  2. Does diversity in STEM improve the scientific process? In a 2015 survey of tenured faculty, underrepresented minorities constituted 10% of the population. This lack of diversity in STEM is nothing new and, while affirmative action attempts to address this issue, there continues to be a dearth of supportive environments for URMs. The counterpoint, however, is that everyone experiences constraints based on their physical selves and that there appear to be distinct benefits to being underrepresented in STEM, i.e. URMs may have a leg up when applying for funding, women are not seen as competitors and, therefore, may be trusted more by colleagues.
    • Do you support affirmative action policies in graduate school admissions/hiring practices - why or why not?
    • How have your personal experiences in academia shaped your career trajectory?
    • Is it important to have role models with whom you share common experiences?
    • Do your personal experiences influence the way you practice science?

Friday Dec 7, 2018
Minisymposium: Diversity and inclusion in science: evidence and action

Four talks about the why and how of diversity and inclusion in science, with an emphasis on evidence and local action.
  • Anne Urai (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Gender diversity in academia - what's the problem, why should you care, and how can we improve?   Slides   Website (more up to date)
  • Andrei Cimpian (NYU Psychology), Beliefs about ability and diversity in academia   Slides
  • Lisa Coleman (NYU Senior Vice President of Global Inclusion and Strategic Innovation and Chief Diversity Officer), The science of inclusion: innovating for our collective futures
  • Moses Chao and Nina Gray (NYU Neuroscience Institute), Diverse Neuroscientists: Doctoral Training Series (DeNDriTeS)  Slides

Friday Aug 24, 2018
Diversity and identity in science: personal narratives

Guests:
  • Chiye Aoki (Center for Neural Science)
  • Jonathan Freeman (Social Psychology)
  • Catherine Hartley (Cognition and Perception)
Moderator: Jennifer Laura Lee (CNS)
We will encourage the audience to share their own views and experiences. Some guiding questions:
  1. Why do we need role models with whom we can personally identify? We often make professional role models of the people whose scientific work we admire. A strong senior mentor can change the course of a career. But is it also important to have role models or mentors with whom you can personally identify? How have your personal experiences in this domain shaped your academic trajectory?
  2. Do diverse perspectives really make for better science? If so, why? Modern Western science is often thought to "bypass" lived experience, in attempting to answer questions impartially. But it is simultaneously accepted that a diversity of personal identities can make for "better science", by introducing new perspectives and ways of thinking. Are these two beliefs compatible? How? How might the subjective biases you bring to your research - born from your positionality and lived experience - improve the scientific process as a whole? Why do/don't you support affirmative action policies for underrepresented minorities in STEM?
  3. Whom should our research serve? Researchers tend to pursue questions which they feel personally curious about, which in turn tends to be a reflection of their prior personal experience. For instance, the social, environmental, or health challenges experienced by a scientist who has enjoyed many privileges may not resemble those of a scientist with a different background. How might different personal experiences, identities, and positionalities contribute to your own research priorities, and to the research priorities of your field? Much funding for STEM research is public; many, though not all, justify the value of their work through the utility they provide others, perhaps many years down the road. At an institutional level, decisions are made about which scientific questions are "worth pursuing", which may have the effect of prioritizing the quality of life of some groups while marginalizing that of others. Who benefits from your research? How have scientists been used to perpetuate or justify dominant perspectives in the past? (E.g. race-IQ correlational studies, research on the degree to which sexual identity is biological determined, research on poverty and motivation, etc.) - How can we learn from these mistakes? Which populations or perspectives do you believe to be currently underserved, excluded, or actively harmed by the dominant theories of your field (or the applications thereof)? Should these questions matter at all to scientists? If so, how do you hope to address them in day-to-day life?