Editor’s Note: Today we offer a double-post, with a proposal and a response concerning how we frame our efforts toward Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility as a community. The first post is from Haseeb Md. Irfanullah, and the second, written in response, is from Lettie Conrad and Dianndra Roberts.

(Re)Defining Our Diversity Discourse

Haseeb Md. Irfanullah

Scholarly publishing, like other intellectual spaces, has two broad sub-spaces for people to get involved in. The first includes staff members working for publishers, infrastructure providers, vendors, and societies as full-time, part-time or contractual employees. But, for those in the second category, such as, editors, editorial board members, and reviewers, it’s an intellectual, and sometimes voluntary or pro bono engagement. Authors, who provide base materials to run the publishing industry, have varied relationships with the journals/publishers. For author-pays OA model journals, there is a direct transactional relationship between the author and the publisher, with the author paying charges for the services needed to make their output available in the market. For subscription journals, the financial relationship is less direct, with the author “paying” for those services with a grant of rights which the publisher then uses to recover costs and bring in profits from readers. Although authors inhabit a unique place beyond the above two categories, they are essentially aligned more with the intellectual group.

When we think of diversity in publishing, we essentially focus on characteristic human features: race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, ability, location, and so on. Most of these are attached to our identities. When the publishing industry is my workplace, these identities are crucial to ensure my rights as an employee, to facilitate equal opportunities for me, and to create a diverse working environment for me representing the wider society we are part of or work in. Here diversity of identity, thus ‘voice’, matters.

But in scholarly publishing, in the second category mentioned above, people get involved because of their scholarly and intellectual ability, expertise, and experience. Our intellects, views, or the content we produce as authors may not always be shaped by where we are from or what our race or sexual orientation is. That’s why, despite being a middle-aged man coming from urban Bangladesh, it doesn’t mean I can’t publish research on girls’ education in rural Ghana. Or that in The Scholarly Kitchen, I should only write about DEIA in the scholarly ecosystem linking the Global South, and can’t write about trust, sustainability, or climate action. Therefore, here I am not representing the ‘voice’ of a particular section of human society, rather I am presenting my ‘view’ in the form of content built on my academic training, research and professional experience, intellectual ability, and interactions with my surroundings.

Therefore, we should make a clear distinction between the diversity in ‘views’ among different scholars and the diversity in ‘voices’ among different identities. In other words, we should make a clear separation between diversity in the workplace and diversity in the non-staff community of academic publishing. Not doing so means pushing scholarly publishing, knowingly or unknowingly, to fall into a ‘diversity trap’. And, we could see six problems resulting from that.

First, publishers are publicly disclosing their DEIA policies, where they focus on diversifying editorial boards, reviewer pools, and authorship based on identities. I wonder — how will I be classified or tagged in a journal’s database if I am a southern researcher publishing research from a northern university on a non-native country? Again, on what basis will the editor send my article to the reviewers: my country, university, study country, or the merit of my research? In the name of diversity, where will the reviewers come from? Should a journal consider their ethnicity, nationality, and current location, or their relevance, quality, frequency, and timeliness of past reviews?

Second, as a scholar, I could argue that my age, sexual orientation, or race has nothing to do with the research I do, the manuscript I write, the journal I edit, or the article I review. If we say these identities do shape my research and actions, then why do we not collect data on my religious beliefs, the income group I belong to, or my political ideology? Don’t these also influence how I see the world?

Third, if we want to change a given DEIA situation, we need to have baselines and have to periodically conduct DEIA surveys to monitor the changes. A major challenge with such surveys lies with the respondents. When we define DEIA only by ‘voice’, we may see participation skewed towards minority groups who might be more enthusiastic toward taking part in surveys. That’s probably why in the C4DISC’s Workplace Equity Survey 2023, 23% of respondents were disabled and/or neurodivergent and 22% identified themselves as LGBTQ+. These proportions are mostly much less in the UK (24%) and the USA (13.5%) for disability, and in England and Wales (3.2%) and the USA (7.6%) for LGBTQ+.

Fourth, when we say we need to improve a given DEIA situation, we need to set targets to aim for. Although APA’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Toolkit for Journal Editors (2021) recommends setting a yearly 10% increase in an editorial board’s representation based on gender, race, disability, and location (p. 17), the basis for suggesting this target percentage is not clear. Should we instead aim for a ratio of different identities/voices that mirrors the population in a publisher’s country, or in a journal’s discipline, or, in the case of a society journal, in its membership?

Fifth, a reality of diversity of voice is that, when the ratio exceeds the natural balance, we often don’t make efforts to restore the balance. In the latest C4DISC Workplace Equity Survey, for example, 76% of the respondents were women, as was the case for the 2018 survey. A proposal to revert such an imbalance would face opposition by bringing in historical gender inequity to justify the current (positive) disparity. A similar situation may be seen in the APA Toolkit, which advises many actions to bring historically excluded scholars onto editorial boards and in leadership positions. The toolkit suggests reviewers recommend references authored by historically excluded groups (p. 19). These are examples of how by being apologetic to its past role in supporting racism and racial discrimination, an organization could introduce neo-inequity into a system, which is essentially supposed to be built on scholarship of the stakeholders, not their skin color or ethnicity.

Sixth, if we want to improve the diverse representation of authors in our journals, we need to ask ourselves: are we working on core problems which may be causing low quality, weak research outputs in the first place? Are we effectively working with the southern governments and the private sector to increase investment in research? Are we sufficiently collaborating with organizations supporting authors’ research writing skills? Have we even asked the scholars from the South, how they feel about the DEIA campaign of the North? If we shy away from working on diversity on the supply side of research communication, how could we expect to create diversity in authors’ pool on the demand side?

We, therefore, need to rethink and reorient ourselves on what diversity should mean in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. We should promote diversity of views, content, or experience offered and harnessed by authors, editors, and reviewers, and keep it separate from diversity of identity/voice within the workforce of the industry. And to do that, publishers/journals should onboard scholars in the above roles based on their scholarship, not based on their other identities or historical exclusion.

Getting Outside the Fishbowl: Why DEIA is Relevant in Every Context

Lettie Conrad & Dianndra Roberts

At some point, we will all find ourselves in the midst of professional conversations when the relevance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) is questioned. We have been seeing sharply increased pushback on DEI/EDIinitiatives in professional and academic contexts starting in 2020.

In a recent conversation with accomplished leaders in the scholarly publishing industry, the value and relevance of DEIA policies came into question regarding its necessity beyond human resources and hiring within the industry. Experiencing this backlash firsthand may be surprising to some — after all, there was a remarkable cultural shift toward embracing and understanding the benefits of diverse and inclusive workplaces. However, for others, this anti-DEIA sentiment was far more predictable and, really, just another day at the office.

In this meeting, our colleagues asked; Why would disability, gender, or race matter when discussing topics that are not explicitly societal concerns? What does this have to do with publishing or peer review? These are cultural and HR issues…

Following this meeting, we discussed our reactions to this firsthand backlash and the meanings behind this sentiment. We discovered that our immediate responses were very different — Lettie was downright shocked and Dianndra was not at all surprised. We also discovered that we agreed on the fundamental principle that DEIA is a relevant topic in every context and conversation. We believe that in ways big and small, our personal identifiers influence our everyday experiences and make us who we are.

In contrast, our fellow Chef, Haseeb Irfanullah, had a very different set of reactions. We are sharing these posts together and hope that these reflections benefit other members of the SSP community, as we are all responsible for building (or not) a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible industry.

Initial reactions

Lettie Conrad: I was surprised to hear our colleagues questioning why we should consider diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts beyond the “cultural” contexts of hiring and workforce development. But, ultimately, I’m glad these questions were voiced, because I may have otherwise assumed that everyone in the room understood that our worldviews are wrought by lived experience and our worldviews influence every single thing we say or do. I might have otherwise assumed that my colleagues shared a desire to see our community level the publishing playing field and begin to counteract historical imbalances.

Does a fish know it’s wet? If all we know is (wealthy, western, male-dominated) privilege, it’s hard to imagine (or, perhaps hard to be motivated to imagine) any other experience as either real or valid. One key value of DEIA efforts is to challenge our unconscious biases and consider perspectives other than our own — if we avoid these challenges, then we are ignorant of any reality beyond the water in our isolated fishbowls.

My fellow chef, Haseeb, questions the value of DEIA initiatives, such as C4DISC’s Workplace Equity Survey, because the resulting data is “skewed towards minority groups,” who he claims are more motivated to respond to such a study. This proves my point exactly: Those with entrenched power and privilege are typically not eager for social changes that might seemingly diminish their piece of the pie. However, we are not playing a zero-sum game, as well only stand to gain by increasing the equity and diversity of our community.

Dianndra Roberts: Unfortunately, I was not surprised that this was raised, I was so far from surprised I had braced myself for the conversation because I have routinely had this conversation with colleagues and industry counterparts. This is a recurring theme when working towards diversity, equity, and inclusion in any field. I am often having to show proof as to why I belong in those rooms without being considered a “diversity hire” or “token”. I’m not asked to present my CV on entry but there are questions regarding my expertise, proven excellence, or having to reiterate why I am present. My industry expertise should speak for itself, but not always — and that is in part because the value of a person comes into question when their identity differs from the majority and this speaks to race, gender, religion, age, disability. No one wants to admit that they are concerned about the value or validity of the space where they hold the privilege changing, but we can tell.

Questions are often raised around “quality” in meetings and in Haseeb’s post — assuming there will be a negative impact due to increased diversity is harmful and it is arguably prejudiced. To suggest that research or any work will become low quality or weak is scaremongering, as we know People of Color, and Black people specifically, in the UK and US have to work significantly harder to be considered equal to their peers or advance in their careers. The C4DISC Workplace Equity Survey 2018 found that: “Allowing for regional differences in salary levels, respondents identifying as Black dominate the second lowest salary band, even though they report that they predominantly live in the highest paying region, indicating a possible ethnicity pay gap.”

Of course, upholding research integrity and scholarly standards is necessary but that should not be used as an excuse to uphold barriers for minoritized people. Two things can be true – reviewer pools need to be diversified as affinity biascan arguably prohibit research progressing from marginalized communities. And we need reviewers who are specialists, especially in niche fields, which might limit who comes forward. However, by opening the doors, we can find reviewers and experts in places we probably wouldn’t have considered – but this requires intention and effort.

It is easy to say that our personal identifiers are not relevant in industry discussions – and they shouldn’t matter – but they do. Bias is real whether it be conscious or unconscious many of us have experienced bias in the workplace or throughout our lives. Macro– and micro-aggressions are an unfortunate longstay of society and will continue to exist if we dismiss the impact they have on a systemic and individual level. Haseeb does mention that Publishing is a female-dominant industry based, however I would note that it is. populated predominately by White women, which present a barrier to access for Women of Color. DEIA encourages intersectionality as a framework, which would put into perspective that it is still very much an industry that remains predominantly White, middle-upper class, heterosexual, and abled/neuro-normative. It’s also important to recognize that there is a gender pay gap in favor of male colleagues which is arguably due to their more senior or executive positions than their counterparts.

Remarkably, we all win when systems, organizations, and environments allow for coalescence. Oftentimes we will benefit from policy changes or initiatives that might not have had us in mind. The curb cut effect continues to show us how being inclusive and accessible positively impacts us all.

Extracting culture from communication?

Lettie: My initial surprise was likely due to the comfort of my filter bubble, which has been trained on the understanding that all communication expresses cultural values and beliefs. Any attempt to extract cultural expression from our overt communications is like trying to remove eggs from a cake after it’s been baked. I respectfully disagree, for instance, with my fellow Chef, Haseeb, when he says that “our intellects, views, or the content we produce as authors may not always be shaped by where we are from or what our race or sexual orientation is.” While the impacts may be nuanced and indirect, our lived experiences have an inescapable influence on our thoughts, words, and actions. (There are also theoretical and methodological disagreements at play here, but that’s a reflection for another blog post.)

Social science research has proven time and again that our perspectives are built up over time via our cultural contexts and the ways we reinforce one another’s views of “reality” within a society. Each of us makes culture-setting moves regularly in our daily lives, both professional and otherwise. What may seem like “neutral” business decisions, like pricing models or sales strategies, are not devoid of cultural impact or expression. Our identities, our beliefs, and all that make up our situated experiences influence every single thing we know and learn — and we mean everything, including publishing business models and other “serious industry” topics!

Dianndra: Having a mindset that where we assume it is irrelevant to include diverse perspectives in our industry debates and conversations, or that it is unnecessary to ensure equitable access to those conversations, then we embrace a monolithic viewpoint and run headlong into “the dangers of a single story.” If all we know is our own experience or life in our own fishbowl, if we don’t expend the effort to listen to and consider other perspectives, then we are like a fish who doesn’t know it’s wet. There is a culture of separation that is apparent in scholarly communications and perhaps in most industries. We have seen an uptake in the theory that DEIA is necessary, however only from a Human Resources standpoint or as a footnote to the rest of the work being done. Arguably DEIA should not be considered an “HR issue”, it is a corporate responsibility and social impact effort.

The working concept of inclusion (and intersectionality) has shown up as a difficulty for many to grasp time and time again. How many of us are approaching DEIA through a fixed-comfort lens as opposed to a growth mindset? Centering personal comforts whilst rooting for change will never change the system. That is where we need to see a difference; not by sending your colleague an emoji of support during a meeting as they do the hard emotional labor of educating others. A growth mindset gives space to listen, learn, be open to critical thinking and discussion, and decenter ourselves in spaces where we hold privilege and truly understand the core of where change needs to happen throughout the ecosystem. It is to be an active and functioning ally within our industry, which means being proactive and introspecting when we are provoked and begin to be disengaged by the idea of change.

Case in point

Lettie: From my own professional perspective in product design, I regularly observe biases in how organizations prioritize feature development and who they include in market research or user testing. Managing a product roadmap at any level constitutes a position of power over the end users who engage with the content and services we provide. In this context, if we do not take care to acknowledge that people are different and question our assumptions, then we are likely to assume that our experiences are close enough to the average user — therefore, platform-wide decisions often rest solely on a very limited set of (privileged) worldviews and will unavoidably exclude people in different contexts.

In contrast, those teams that acknowledge their contextualized limitations, and are dedicated to delivering equitable and inclusive products, take steps to counteract unconscious biases and work toward an operational understanding of how all current and potential users experience their information products or services. This means going out of the way to recruit diverse research participants, achieve accessibility compliance, and challenge working assumptions.

Dianndra: Inclusive language throughout our processes and peer review is beneficial to us as employees within scholarly communications but for researchers, peer reviewers and readers. Embedding DEIA within house style guides for inclusive language, accessibility requirements, and sense-checking represnts the research practices we strive for, upholds psychological safety, and lowers the barriers to engagement. We have to be mindful of how the separation of DEIA from the industry working is counterintuitive to DEIA as a framework that works with the system, not against it. Diversity data is largely collected within US and UK employment when applying for roles or once in employment. There has also been an increased practice of asking these questions in manuscript systems to better understand the microcosm of practice. These questions do range from race and age to religious beliefs but are all optional.

Considering DEIA within the framework of research as a limitation is a tactic to prevent change and remain in a space of fixed comfort. We have seen time and time again that inclusive and equitable practices benefit everyone. Haseeb raises a point “despite being a middle-aged man coming from urban Bangladesh, it doesn’t mean I can’t publish research on girls’ education in rural Ghana”, and that is true. When we consider inclusivity, there is a benefit to including the voices of the culture that is being addressed. To partake in such research without the lived experience and expertise of said girls would lack integrity and authenticity. To involve on-the-ground researchers with expertise to share the platform and funding opportunities is equitable. Considering how to make the article freely available is accessible. These actions are not separate from the practices of scholarly publishing, we could in fact do more harm when we create divides for our ease (and entitlement) rather than doing the work for our betterment.

Conclusion

During a DEIA session at the SSP Annual Meeting, a presenter provoked thought by saying: “It’s simple. People are different.” We can go one step further and say people are different and that is okay. If we can kindly accept this basic fact, then we are just one small logical step away from acknowledging that these differences impact our view of the world. Difference is not a fault or a negative or to be dismissed because we do not understand it, we must be open to listening and learning the differences in between. By continuing the rhetoric that DEIA is a phase or separate from enhancing the scholarly communications industry, we will continue to sink into fixed comfort thinking and ultimately embrace a monolithic viewpoint and increasing division with conformity bias and confirmation bias. The world will continue to change and the industry will find itself falling short and being reactive instead of taking the opportunity to be proactive. If all we (choose to) know is our limited experience within our own little fishbowl, if we don’t expend the effort to listen to and consider other perspectives, then we are like a fish who doesn’t know it’s wet.

The C4DISC Workplace Equity Survey is a great effort to better understand and support the landscape we are working in. As Haseeb mentions, 23% of respondents were disabled and/or neurodivergent. It’s important to recognize the survey response was 11% neurodivergent, 8% disabled, and 4% neurodivergent and disabled out of 1,518 respondents as 5% preferred not to say. We run the risk of creating a monolith of the respondents by conflating their identities. Although 24% of the UK workforce (16-64) in part- or full-time employment is disabled, 42.6% of disabled people in the UK are unable to work for various reasons. C4DISC has made a wonderful effort to cultivate safer spaces to allow more people to share their experiences and speak up for change. Unfortunately, a large number of people in society do not feel safe or have the ability to disclose this information.

When the water is fine and privilege is ours, it is easiest to maintain the status quo and languish without challenging ourselves. Haseeb suggests “a reality of diversity of voice is that, when the ratio exceeds the natural balance, we often don’t make efforts to restore the balance.” Although we are not clear on what ‘diversity of voice’ is referring to, this is not a reality that we know about DEIA and we cannot state this for certain as we are yet to see marginalized groups become the majority. Equity is not a force to take from one group to give to another, inclusion is a driver of critical thinking, and diversity does not encourage prejudice. It’s about changing the environment to make systemic change. Science demonstrates that the strongest life forms are those that enjoy a diverse ecosystem and routine opportunities to adapt and learn new skills. We are all empowered to ensure our industry is an equitable and inclusive one — and we are making progress together, by adopting new policies and procedures, and defining new rules of engagement, such as the C4DISC toolkit.