|
THE WHITE BOARD - One Year On
|
Introduction
In March 2021, I published an article titled “The White Board”. The article was about the composition of the boards and senior teams of various organisations involved in science, research funding and technology transfer in the UK, from the perspective of race. I looked at the composition of 48 groups in these organisations and the number of people of colour in these groups. In March 2021, of the 603 people in the 48 groups, a total of 40 people, 6.6% were people of colour [that’s about 1 in 15 people; against a national population of 13% people of colour in the 2011 Census (about 1 in 8 people), updated by ONS in 2019 to 15% (1 in 7)]; 21 of the 48 groups had no people of colour (44%). This was a real surprise; but then again ... maybe not. British science appears remarkably white, with a severe lack of racial diversity in some really important places. I ended the article asking - ‘In a year’s time, what will the position look like?’
One year later, I have looked at the same 48 groups again. There has been an overall improvement in racial diversity across the 48 groups, which shows that changes can be made, diversity can be increased. Of the 598 people in the same 48 groups, 9.9% are people of colour (that’s about 1 in 10 people); although 19 of the 48 groups have no people of colour (40%). Nineteen of the forty-eight groups have no people of colour. Nineteen of the forty-eight groups have no people of colour.
The membership of the leadership and senior teams in any organisation is so important; people look up; and what do they see? For the groups resolutely lacking racial diversity, what are they doing? Are they trying hard and not getting there yet? Are they so clever they think it doesn’t matter?
Findings
The Tables below summarise the data from March 2021 and March 2022, and the Chart below illustrates the data.
In March 2021, I published an article titled “The White Board”. The article was about the composition of the boards and senior teams of various organisations involved in science, research funding and technology transfer in the UK, from the perspective of race. I looked at the composition of 48 groups in these organisations and the number of people of colour in these groups. In March 2021, of the 603 people in the 48 groups, a total of 40 people, 6.6% were people of colour [that’s about 1 in 15 people; against a national population of 13% people of colour in the 2011 Census (about 1 in 8 people), updated by ONS in 2019 to 15% (1 in 7)]; 21 of the 48 groups had no people of colour (44%). This was a real surprise; but then again ... maybe not. British science appears remarkably white, with a severe lack of racial diversity in some really important places. I ended the article asking - ‘In a year’s time, what will the position look like?’
One year later, I have looked at the same 48 groups again. There has been an overall improvement in racial diversity across the 48 groups, which shows that changes can be made, diversity can be increased. Of the 598 people in the same 48 groups, 9.9% are people of colour (that’s about 1 in 10 people); although 19 of the 48 groups have no people of colour (40%). Nineteen of the forty-eight groups have no people of colour. Nineteen of the forty-eight groups have no people of colour.
The membership of the leadership and senior teams in any organisation is so important; people look up; and what do they see? For the groups resolutely lacking racial diversity, what are they doing? Are they trying hard and not getting there yet? Are they so clever they think it doesn’t matter?
Findings
The Tables below summarise the data from March 2021 and March 2022, and the Chart below illustrates the data.
Table 1 Summary and breakdown of the data for People of Colour
Overall, moving from 6.6% to 9.9% people of colour is positive change in the right direction; from 40 out of 603, to 59 out of 598 people. The overall improvement comes from 17 of the groups; during the year, 17 of the groups managed to increase the number of people of colour. The improvements in government, learned societies and charities exceed that in the Technology Transfer sector.
Overall, moving from 6.6% to 9.9% people of colour is positive change in the right direction; from 40 out of 603, to 59 out of 598 people. The overall improvement comes from 17 of the groups; during the year, 17 of the groups managed to increase the number of people of colour. The improvements in government, learned societies and charities exceed that in the Technology Transfer sector.
Table 2 Data for proportion of women compared to men in the 48 groups
Overall, moving from 40% to 43% women is positive change in the right direction. All the groups have men and women, there are none of all men, or all women. In 2022, the highest proportion of women in a group is 6 out of 8, 75%; five groups have more than 60% women; three of the groups have one woman member.
Overall, moving from 40% to 43% women is positive change in the right direction. All the groups have men and women, there are none of all men, or all women. In 2022, the highest proportion of women in a group is 6 out of 8, 75%; five groups have more than 60% women; three of the groups have one woman member.
Chart 1 Changes from 2021 to 2022 for both numbers of people of colour and numbers of women.
In general, the numbers of women are proportionately closer to what could be expected in an equal and diverse world (50%) than the numbers of people of colour (15%) given the national population.
As I said last year, I am not an HR professional, social scientist, nor involved in organisational data monitoring. I am sure some people are clever enough to pick holes in the approach and methodology; that isn’t the point really; it’s the bigger picture and overall pattern that are important, and for each individual group to question themselves.
Recent Activity
In the 2021 article, I mentioned a wide range of organisations and activities aiming to increase racial diversity: Diversity UK, Change The Race Ratio, Parker Review, Hamilton Commission with Royal Academy of Engineering, Green Park Review, 30% Club, Advance HE, and some Technology Transfer national organisations. One thing that stood out was the impressive efforts of industry to address diversity, both racial and gender, compared to those efforts within the worlds of science research.
The CBI’s Change The Race Ratio in particular looks very successful, very effective, and very well presented. Universities and research funders could engage so much more enthusiastically with this group.
However, there are initiatives within science research, technology transfer that are doing good things; here is a selection:
EDIS - Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health
EDIS is a coalition of organisations working to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the science and health research sector, originally established by The Francis Crick Institute research centre, independent funder Wellcome Trust, and our commercial partners GlaxoSmithKline. EDIS runs powerful Beyond Bias anti-racism training, and recently presented oral evidence at the Parliamentary Inquiry into Diversity and Inclusion in STEM. It is hosted by Wellcome and now has 17 member organisations.
Hamilton Commission
The Hamilton Commission Report has been published, a collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering, looking at Improving Representation of Black People in UK Motorsport. It is an impressive piece of work, sets out the problem and provides 10 Recommendations for action. Part of its value lies in taking this approach and applying it to other sectors.
The Royal Society of Chemistry
The RSC has recently published a report titled “Racial and ethnic inequalities in the chemical sciences”. As the Report says: “This report shines a stark light on racism and ethnic inequalities in the chemical sciences. We reviewed relevant data and reports and gathered new qualitative evidence of chemical scientists’ lived experiences. Our findings paint a stark picture of how pervasive racial and ethnic inequalities are within the chemical sciences community, how hard this is to challenge, and the way exclusion and marginalisation are to a large extent normalised for many Black chemists and others from minoritised ethnic backgrounds.” The Report commits RSC to 5 actions: “In order to continue dismantling barriers for people from Black and minoritised ethnic backgrounds in the chemical sciences, we will: 1. Create a dedicated Race & Ethnicity Unit, funded by an initial £1.5 million investment to lead systemic change. 2. Partner with chemical industry employers to strengthen career support, opportunities and progression. 3. Launch a five-year RSC-Windsor Fellowship mentoring scheme for chemistry students. 4. Proactively increase representation in our governance, committees and editorial boards. 5. Engage with our community and partners to listen to, share and learn from lived experiences and continually challenge ourselves to do more.
Technology Transfer
GEDITT
Global Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Technology Transfer was founded in April 2021 by six individuals all working in Technology Transfer roles in the UK and the US (I am proud to be one of these six).
GEDITT identifies three ways that people in TT can think about EDI (Equality, Diversity, Inclusion) activities: 1. In Your TTO 2. In Your institution 3. Outside. TT is very well-placed to have a positive influence on EDI because of the nature of TT activities - very broad based research outputs and involving many different people and groups in the innovation community.
1. In your TTO - This is all about the employment and management practices of your TTO and the work-place culture. Does your TTO have an EDI-minded approach to recruitment, progression, leadership, and governance? Are under-represented groups represented? Do people understand the difference between diversity and inclusion? What is the gender balance, what is the ethnicity balance?
2. In your institution - This is about how the TTO can influence EDI within the institution that the TTO serves (university, research institute, hospital etc).
Is the TTO engaging with under-represented groups amongst the researchers and academics? Are you seeing disclosures to the TTO that fully represent the diversity of academic and research staff in your institution? Could you develop awareness raising activities, training courses that attract people from under-represented groups, for example? Are you working with role-models to help promote engagement? Are you thinking what the barriers might be?
3. Outside your TTO and Institution - There is huge opportunity for TTOs to influence EDI outside the TTO and Institution. We can look at this in terms of:
· the technologies, projects, and knowledge that we are transferring - do any of them have a positive effect on addressing EDI? Are any of them helping to address challenges across all groups of people in society, especially under-represented groups? Are there any stories we can be telling about how the TTO has helped in this regard?
· the organizations we work with, either our suppliers (patent attorneys, lawyers, consultants), or our partners (investors, companies, licensees, incubators). Do they have good EDI practices? Are they EDI-minded? If not, do you want to use any leverage you have to encourage them? In the same way we promote good ‘access to medicines’ practice in licensing deals, you can ensure licensed technology is used and applied in an EDI compliant manner.
· the spin-out companies we set up; as a shareholder we have a voice at the table for ensuring these new companies are EDI-minded from the start, in every aspect of their business activities and governance.
· the international reach of our activities, in terms of learning from and helping improve EDI practices with all our partners around the world.
It is the very nature of TT activity that places TT in such a strong position to help improve equality, diversity, and inclusion in the world. That is why we set up GEDITT (Global Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Technology Transfer).
GEDITT has organised a number of events, some open, some direct to a single university.
The next GEDITT event is on April 7, focussed on identifying Actions to promote better EDI in Technology Transfer, taking a lead from the Hamilton Commission Report https://geditt.com
AUTM (the US national Technology Transfer association)
AUTM has an EDI Committee and an EDI track in its annual conference. At the Annual Conference in New Orleans in February 2022, there was an EDI Breakfast - it was an impressive occasion.
PraxisAuril (the UK national Technology Transfer association)
PraxisAuril is not yet leading on this issue in the UK technology transfer scene. There is certainly willingness in some areas, but something is holding it back. PraxisAuril did hold its first online discussion on EDI in June 2021 and includes EDI themes in its 2022 June Annual Conference in Brighton.
For all Technology Transfer associations that organise events and conferences there are three essential steps: have a statement on EDI policies and actions; have a sub-committee/working group on EDI in technology transfer; and have a track of EDI events at annual conferences. The membership wants and expect these things.
On April 19th 2022 a number of these organisations are holding a free online webinar ‘Strengthening Equality, Diversity and Inclusion within TT/KE’.
https://www.astp4kt.eu/webinars/strategies-for-strengthening-ttke-with-edi-best-practices-144.html
Finally
There’s an old joke that does the rounds in university circles: Question “How many university academics does it take to change a light bulb?” to which the response is a quizzical “Change?!”. Let us hope this approach doesn’t continue to apply in the worlds of UK science, research funders, universities and technology transfer.
In another year’s time, what will the position look like?
Action is overdue, but never too late.
Tom Hockaday, March 2022
In general, the numbers of women are proportionately closer to what could be expected in an equal and diverse world (50%) than the numbers of people of colour (15%) given the national population.
As I said last year, I am not an HR professional, social scientist, nor involved in organisational data monitoring. I am sure some people are clever enough to pick holes in the approach and methodology; that isn’t the point really; it’s the bigger picture and overall pattern that are important, and for each individual group to question themselves.
Recent Activity
In the 2021 article, I mentioned a wide range of organisations and activities aiming to increase racial diversity: Diversity UK, Change The Race Ratio, Parker Review, Hamilton Commission with Royal Academy of Engineering, Green Park Review, 30% Club, Advance HE, and some Technology Transfer national organisations. One thing that stood out was the impressive efforts of industry to address diversity, both racial and gender, compared to those efforts within the worlds of science research.
The CBI’s Change The Race Ratio in particular looks very successful, very effective, and very well presented. Universities and research funders could engage so much more enthusiastically with this group.
However, there are initiatives within science research, technology transfer that are doing good things; here is a selection:
EDIS - Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health
EDIS is a coalition of organisations working to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the science and health research sector, originally established by The Francis Crick Institute research centre, independent funder Wellcome Trust, and our commercial partners GlaxoSmithKline. EDIS runs powerful Beyond Bias anti-racism training, and recently presented oral evidence at the Parliamentary Inquiry into Diversity and Inclusion in STEM. It is hosted by Wellcome and now has 17 member organisations.
Hamilton Commission
The Hamilton Commission Report has been published, a collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering, looking at Improving Representation of Black People in UK Motorsport. It is an impressive piece of work, sets out the problem and provides 10 Recommendations for action. Part of its value lies in taking this approach and applying it to other sectors.
The Royal Society of Chemistry
The RSC has recently published a report titled “Racial and ethnic inequalities in the chemical sciences”. As the Report says: “This report shines a stark light on racism and ethnic inequalities in the chemical sciences. We reviewed relevant data and reports and gathered new qualitative evidence of chemical scientists’ lived experiences. Our findings paint a stark picture of how pervasive racial and ethnic inequalities are within the chemical sciences community, how hard this is to challenge, and the way exclusion and marginalisation are to a large extent normalised for many Black chemists and others from minoritised ethnic backgrounds.” The Report commits RSC to 5 actions: “In order to continue dismantling barriers for people from Black and minoritised ethnic backgrounds in the chemical sciences, we will: 1. Create a dedicated Race & Ethnicity Unit, funded by an initial £1.5 million investment to lead systemic change. 2. Partner with chemical industry employers to strengthen career support, opportunities and progression. 3. Launch a five-year RSC-Windsor Fellowship mentoring scheme for chemistry students. 4. Proactively increase representation in our governance, committees and editorial boards. 5. Engage with our community and partners to listen to, share and learn from lived experiences and continually challenge ourselves to do more.
Technology Transfer
GEDITT
Global Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Technology Transfer was founded in April 2021 by six individuals all working in Technology Transfer roles in the UK and the US (I am proud to be one of these six).
GEDITT identifies three ways that people in TT can think about EDI (Equality, Diversity, Inclusion) activities: 1. In Your TTO 2. In Your institution 3. Outside. TT is very well-placed to have a positive influence on EDI because of the nature of TT activities - very broad based research outputs and involving many different people and groups in the innovation community.
1. In your TTO - This is all about the employment and management practices of your TTO and the work-place culture. Does your TTO have an EDI-minded approach to recruitment, progression, leadership, and governance? Are under-represented groups represented? Do people understand the difference between diversity and inclusion? What is the gender balance, what is the ethnicity balance?
2. In your institution - This is about how the TTO can influence EDI within the institution that the TTO serves (university, research institute, hospital etc).
Is the TTO engaging with under-represented groups amongst the researchers and academics? Are you seeing disclosures to the TTO that fully represent the diversity of academic and research staff in your institution? Could you develop awareness raising activities, training courses that attract people from under-represented groups, for example? Are you working with role-models to help promote engagement? Are you thinking what the barriers might be?
3. Outside your TTO and Institution - There is huge opportunity for TTOs to influence EDI outside the TTO and Institution. We can look at this in terms of:
· the technologies, projects, and knowledge that we are transferring - do any of them have a positive effect on addressing EDI? Are any of them helping to address challenges across all groups of people in society, especially under-represented groups? Are there any stories we can be telling about how the TTO has helped in this regard?
· the organizations we work with, either our suppliers (patent attorneys, lawyers, consultants), or our partners (investors, companies, licensees, incubators). Do they have good EDI practices? Are they EDI-minded? If not, do you want to use any leverage you have to encourage them? In the same way we promote good ‘access to medicines’ practice in licensing deals, you can ensure licensed technology is used and applied in an EDI compliant manner.
· the spin-out companies we set up; as a shareholder we have a voice at the table for ensuring these new companies are EDI-minded from the start, in every aspect of their business activities and governance.
· the international reach of our activities, in terms of learning from and helping improve EDI practices with all our partners around the world.
It is the very nature of TT activity that places TT in such a strong position to help improve equality, diversity, and inclusion in the world. That is why we set up GEDITT (Global Equality Diversity and Inclusion in Technology Transfer).
GEDITT has organised a number of events, some open, some direct to a single university.
The next GEDITT event is on April 7, focussed on identifying Actions to promote better EDI in Technology Transfer, taking a lead from the Hamilton Commission Report https://geditt.com
AUTM (the US national Technology Transfer association)
AUTM has an EDI Committee and an EDI track in its annual conference. At the Annual Conference in New Orleans in February 2022, there was an EDI Breakfast - it was an impressive occasion.
PraxisAuril (the UK national Technology Transfer association)
PraxisAuril is not yet leading on this issue in the UK technology transfer scene. There is certainly willingness in some areas, but something is holding it back. PraxisAuril did hold its first online discussion on EDI in June 2021 and includes EDI themes in its 2022 June Annual Conference in Brighton.
For all Technology Transfer associations that organise events and conferences there are three essential steps: have a statement on EDI policies and actions; have a sub-committee/working group on EDI in technology transfer; and have a track of EDI events at annual conferences. The membership wants and expect these things.
On April 19th 2022 a number of these organisations are holding a free online webinar ‘Strengthening Equality, Diversity and Inclusion within TT/KE’.
https://www.astp4kt.eu/webinars/strategies-for-strengthening-ttke-with-edi-best-practices-144.html
Finally
There’s an old joke that does the rounds in university circles: Question “How many university academics does it take to change a light bulb?” to which the response is a quizzical “Change?!”. Let us hope this approach doesn’t continue to apply in the worlds of UK science, research funders, universities and technology transfer.
In another year’s time, what will the position look like?
Action is overdue, but never too late.
Tom Hockaday, March 2022