THE WHITE BOARD
17 February 2021
Race, racial diversity, racial inequality and the composition of the boards and senior teams of various organisations is an area of significant interest.
This article is about the composition of the boards and senior teams of various organisations involved in science, research and technology transfer in the UK, from the perspective of race, and gender. I have looked at the composition of 41 boards and teams in these organisations and the number of people of colour and the gender balance in these groups.
The article makes reference to the Parker Review, the Green Park review, articles from David Lammy, Diversity UK, the Hamilton Commission, and the 30% Club and Athena Swan. I have spoken to a small number of people who have experience of the issues involved to help inform this article.
1. FINDINGS
Some Data
The 41 groups total 481 people, 289 men (60%), 192 women (40%), 36 people of colour (7.5%), 22 men of colour and 14 women of colour; 267 white men and 178 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 23 people.
Of the 41 groups, 18 have no people of colour (44%). Of the other 23 that do have a person of colour, 14 have one person of colour (61%). The percentage of people of colour ranges from 5% to 25%, from one to four people.
The groups are all in the UK and are from government research councils and agencies, charities that fund (mainly) medical research, scientific learned societies, technology transfer offices and closely tied investment groups. It’s a mixture of groups, aimed at including as many relevant groups as possible. If a group is missing, it is accidental not deliberate. The information is taken from public sources, organisation websites, followed up with additional web searching. I am not an HR professional, 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.
Overall, 7.5% people of colour is too low, that’s one in thirteen people; and individually the groups where it is zero need to change.
Some Context
All of this needs to be put in context of the overall population (or does it?).
In the UK 13% of the population are People of Colour. That is close to one in eight people. Let’s say one in ten to take account of some of the usual “ah, yes, well, that’s because ...” comments about how special each group is. If you have a group of eight or ten people, why are they all white? And are you doing anything about it?
In the world, very approximately 70% of people are People of Colour, 30% white.
In most population groups there are approximately 50% women and 50% men.
Why does it matter?
It matters. It is not right, it is not fair, it is not good. These are good enough reasons for me.
Others may want further reasons.
The Parker Review (see below) makes its case very clear, for business: alignment with customer base and the talent pool. These points relate to research, science and technology transfer: alignment with society, accessing the talent pool. And it matters at the top of these organisations which is why looking at boards and senior teams is worthwhile.
People look up, and what do they see? Success, possible role models, and either people like them or not.
A few comments
Language - Black, white, people of colour, coloured, non-white, ethnic, Asian, African, Afro-Caribbean, African descent, BAME, BIPOC, under-represented groups, ethnically diverse, diversity, inclusion, equality, inequality. It is complicated; from all I have read I am using “white” and “people of colour”, together everybody.
Tokenism - You have to start somewhere. One is better than none; two is that much more better than one. When is the low number a token, tick the box? When does any number above zero represent real change, real progress, real absorption of the issues?
Check - your privilege; I am a white man. I have seen many instances of racial inequality; I have not experienced it myself, except as a beneficiary.
2. RECENT ACTIVITIY
Parker Review
The Parker Review led by Sir John Parker is “A Report into the Ethnic Diversity of UK Boards” published in 2017. In early 2020 an update report from the Parker Review team was published “Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership”.
From Sir John Parker’s 2020 Foreword: “I sincerely believe that, at a time when the UK needs business to make a crucial contribution, and when public confidence in the market economy is at best fragile, attaining our goal of “One by 21” is more than socially desirable. It is an essential element in our country’s economic future, and the esteem in which our companies are held around the world. We can and must act without further delay ... The business imperatives which we originally set out could not be clearer: 1. Greater alignment with our customer base at home and overseas. 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our home and overseas markets which will influence recruitment patterns for years to come.”
In 2017 the Parker Review set the challenge as follows: “to ensure that by the end of 2021, no member of the FTSE 100 would lack a person of colour as a director. We also encouraged FTSE 250 companies to meet this target by 2024.”
The Parker Review data analysis by EY Consulting in 2020 is based on survey responses; while response rates were high, they do not have a complete data set. Of the responses, 37% of FTSE100 companies did not meet the target; 69% of FTSE 250 Companies did not meet the target. It is not going very well.
Green Park Review
Green Park is a London based leadership consulting and recruitment firm. In February 2021 the Green Park Annual Business Leaders Index records no black chairs, CEOs or CFOs at FTSE 100 companies. That is zero out of 300 people. This is for the first time in six years of analysis.
David Lammy MP
David Lammy is Member of Parliament for Tottenham in London. He has written on racial inequality in student admissions at British universities, notably Oxford University. In 2018 he published data on Oxford’s student admissions, summarising: “You are twice as likely to get into Oxford as a white applicant (24%) than a black applicant (12%). Why? 1 in 4 Oxford colleges did not admit a single black student in a whole year group at least once between 2015-17. Eight colleges less than 1% black. Why?”
Oxford University Council has 26 members, one of whom is a person of colour (4%). It doesn’t look good from either end of the organisation. This matters, for Oxford, and also more widely. Oxford is routinely ranked as the top research university in the world and with the world’s leading medical school. Consider the signalling effects of this elite institution and its approach racial inequality.
Diversity UK
Started in 2012, Diversity UK is “an equality charity that aims to research, advocate and promote ideas for improving diversity and inclusion in Britain. It is an evidence-based initiative that seeks to influence policy, enhance civic engagement and improve the perception of the minority ethnic community in Britain. The purpose of Diversity UK is to advance the education of the public in diversity and inclusion in the workplace, in particular by carrying out research for the public benefit in all aspects of that subject and to publish the useful results.”
Diversity UK is currently focussing on five areas: Amplifying the work of other organisations and campaigns; Collaborating to deliver initiatives; Disseminating research papers, equality initiatives and diversity campaigns through its website and monthly newsletter; Participating in roundtable consultations, panel debates and events; and Promoting race equality by hosting the annual Paul Stephenson lecture.
Diversity UK has focused on appointments in public life, but it has not yet focused the worlds of universities, science and research.
The Hamilton Commission
The Royal Academy of Engineering is one of the learned societies in the UK and is now involved in a commission to address the under-representation of Black people in the STEM sector:
“The Royal Academy of Engineering is partnering with Lewis Hamilton MBE HonFREng to launch the Hamilton Commission, a research project that will work to identify the key barriers to recruitment and progression of Black people in UK motorsport, and provide actionable recommendations to overcome them. Motorsport is unique in the range of roles and responsibilities in a team, particularly for individuals specialising in STEM subjects. The Hamilton Commission presents an opportunity to simultaneously address the under-representation of Black people in UK motorsport and the STEM sector.”
There are a number of learned societies in the group I have looked at. Two very prominent ones have no people of colour on their most senior boards. They are no doubt clever enough to explain the reasons for this; but if doing so, they make a mistake.
30% Club and Athena Swan
The 30% Club is all about gender diversity. The 30% Club was founded in 2010 in the UK and has since evolved into a global mission with chapters in many regions around the world. “Our global mission is to reach at least 30% representation of all women on all boards and C-suites globally.”
I think the Why 30% question is an interesting point in relation to racial diversity. From the 30% Club website: “WHY 30%? When the campaign originally launched in the UK back in 2010, there were just 12% women on FTSE 100 boards and 30% felt like an aspirational stretch target. At that time, we also identified research suggesting that 30% represents a critical mass from which point minority groups can impact boardroom dynamics. Our 30% target is a minimum objective - it represents a floor not a ceiling – ultimately, we are striving for gender balance. Sadly, to this day, 30% women - either at board or senior management level - remains a stretch for many organisations throughout the world.”
I wonder what is the right % to think about for race; I wouldn’t call it a club. [The UK 30% Club Steering Committee has 25 members, 23 women, 2 men, one quarter are people of colour.]
The 30% Club website homepage currently has a notice about racism. “At the 30% Club there is no room for racism. We can’t stand by and watch the brutality of police towards Black people in the US without making it clear that all people are created equal, yet the world does not treat them this way. As we decide our UK targets for the next three years, we feel the time has come to set goals that make clear our commitment to ethnic diversity. At the same time our Inclusion & Diversity working group is taking a deep dive on the issues faced by Black people and other executives from the BAME community, as they attempt to climb the corporate ladder and join boards. We will share our findings and recommendations within the next six months.” I very much look forward to seeing these.
The Athena Swan Charter is a framework which is used across the globe to support and transform gender equality within higher education (HE) and research. Established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM) employment, the Charter is now being used across the globe to address gender equality more broadly, and not just barriers to progression that affect women.
The comparison of racial diversity with gender diversity is useful. Of the 41 groups, 1 has no women. Of the other 40 that do have at least one woman, the percentage of women ranges from 13% to 63%, from one to nine women. Where the leader of the group is a woman, there are more women in the group.
3. University Technology Transfer
This article started as a look at racial inequality in university technology transfer in the UK, although it has expanded.
Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs)
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Technology Transfer organisations are as follows. There are 14 TT groups, totalling 132 people, 94 men (71%), 38 women (29%), 10 people of colour (7.6%), 8 men of colour and 2 women of colour; 86 white men and 36 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 15 people.
Of the 14 groups, 7 have no people of colour (50%). Of the other 7 that do have a person of colour, 4 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the seven that do ranges from 8% to 25%, from one to two people.
Overall, the TTOs groups show a similar pattern to that of all the groups I have looked at for racial inequality (TT is at 7.6%), and less good on gender balance.
Training
Early this year I read about the Columbia University (in New York) Diversity and Inclusion in Commercialization and Entrepreneurship programme (DICE). This is a training programme aimed at under-represented groups. The course content is much as one would expect for any good programme on commercialisation and entrepreneurship; the key distinguishing feature is bringing in mentors and role models from under-represented groups and help the students on the course develop their networks.
I am not aware of anything similar in the UK.
TT Associations
AUTM, the US association for university technology transfer people has a committee looking at inequality and an Equity, Diversity & Inclusion - ED&I Statement: AUTM is committed to fostering diversity and inclusion within its Membership and the technology transfer profession. Diversity encompasses, but is not limited to: race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, physical or medical condition, military and veteran status, socioeconomic status, marital and familial status, and sexual orientation. With greater diversity, we can be more just, effective, and creative by bringing varied perspectives, experiences, backgrounds, talents and interests to AUTM. We recognize that to fully and equitably support the pursuit of equal justice, inclusion, and integrity, AUTM must reflect the full spectrum of the world. AUTM pledges to: focus on fairness, diversifying our leadership, and acting with integrity; hold Association leaders and Membership responsible for its practices and actions; consider and give weight to the diversity and inclusion practices of service providers when selecting those with whom we will do business, and increase the diversity of our organization and programming.”
In Europe, the UK association PraxisAuril does not have a similar statement, nor does the European association ASTP. The boards of these organisations have few people of colour. It looks like a very white world; imagine walking into the room as a person of colour.
TT Metrics
In 1999 the Wellcome Trust, HM Treasury and The Gatsby Foundation funded a new seed fund programme in the UK called the University Challenge Fund. For successful applicants there were reporting requirements for 10 years. One question was how many and what proportion of university researchers who applied for awards from the successful Funds were women. It was the first time I saw this reporting requirement in university technology transfer. I have never seen reporting criteria relating to race. I do not know of anywhere that collects it, or notices.
Metrics is a big topic in university technology transfer at the moment. Time to think about racial inequality. The focus of the metrics is Impact, and elsewhere context, activity, environment and impact. Is anyone thinking about racial inequality? Is anyone thinking about the impact of university technology transfer with a racial dimension? - university researchers, TT staff, impact of technologies on certain populations?
4. Other Groups
Scientific Learned Societies and Research Charities
Overall, these groups are low down on the inclusion of people of colour (scientific learned councils are worse than research charities), and relatively better on gender balance.
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Scientific Learned Societies and Research Charities are as follows. There are 19 groups, totalling 235 people, 135 men (57%), 100 women (43%), 13 people of colour (5.5%), 8 men of colour and 5 women of colour; 127 white men and 95 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 23 people.
Of the 19 groups, 9 have no people of colour (47%). Of the other 10 that do have a person of colour, 7 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the 10 that do ranges from 5% to 25%, from one to two people.
A number of these groups have equality, diversity and inclusion statements. What counts for more - having an equality, diversity and inclusion statement on your website, or putting people where your policies are? There’s one group of over twenty people in this category with no people of colour; ‘ah, yes, well, you see, that’s because ....’.
Government groups
Overall, these groups are well up on the inclusion of people of colour, and also relatively good on gender balance
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Government groups are as follows; these are public bodies involved in research funding and technology transfer. There are 12 groups, totalling 153 people, 84 men (55%), 69 women (45%), 15 people of colour (9.8%), 7 men of colour and 8 women of colour; 77 white men and 61 white women. The groups range in size from 8 people to 16 people.
Of the 12 groups, 4 have no people of colour (33%). Of the other 8 that do have a person of colour, 5 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the 8 that do ranges from 7% to 25%, from one to four people.
5. What to do
There are some clear messages from the people I have spoken to about what is needed and what works:
Education - at all levels, in so many places. Start at the schools, teach everyone that science is important, worthwhile careers follow, technology transfer is real, show the role models. Carry on in universities, do the same. Carry on with post-graduate students. Change the mindset, change the culture.
Knowing the process - provide opportunities for people to understand and learn the processes involved in technology transfer.
Network - help students grow and develop their networks; bring people together, bring in role models who can tell their stories and join the networks. Build the community.
Role Models - already mentioned and so important; identify them and bring them in. Link it back to the education, help the parents and teachers understand that science and technology transfer are respectable careers.
Action - ask the questions, send the-mails, ask the boards, the HR department - what are you doing about this vital issue? They may not realise. Ask to look at the equality, diversity and inclusivity statements and activities.
Leadership - recognise the problem, identify and implement the change. Start and don’t stop.
What you do needs to be for the long term; start and do not finish; sustain the programmes. People do not want to see token initiatives which fade away after a couple of years; and it will take a few years of sustained effort to see change; ask the 30% Club. If you start with an experiment, don’t call it an experiment, or a pilot.
Finally
There are many organisations that seek to address gender inequality, in business, and elsewhere, including science, research; there are organisations that investigate and seek to address racial inequality in business, but not in science and research. Overall, 7.5% is a low number, one in thirteen people; groups where it is zero need to change.
It will be great to hear from people about what they are doing to improve this situation. It will also be important to hear from people why they think improving racial equality is important.
In a year’s time, what will the position look like?
Tom Hockaday
February 2021
This article is about the composition of the boards and senior teams of various organisations involved in science, research and technology transfer in the UK, from the perspective of race, and gender. I have looked at the composition of 41 boards and teams in these organisations and the number of people of colour and the gender balance in these groups.
The article makes reference to the Parker Review, the Green Park review, articles from David Lammy, Diversity UK, the Hamilton Commission, and the 30% Club and Athena Swan. I have spoken to a small number of people who have experience of the issues involved to help inform this article.
1. FINDINGS
Some Data
The 41 groups total 481 people, 289 men (60%), 192 women (40%), 36 people of colour (7.5%), 22 men of colour and 14 women of colour; 267 white men and 178 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 23 people.
Of the 41 groups, 18 have no people of colour (44%). Of the other 23 that do have a person of colour, 14 have one person of colour (61%). The percentage of people of colour ranges from 5% to 25%, from one to four people.
The groups are all in the UK and are from government research councils and agencies, charities that fund (mainly) medical research, scientific learned societies, technology transfer offices and closely tied investment groups. It’s a mixture of groups, aimed at including as many relevant groups as possible. If a group is missing, it is accidental not deliberate. The information is taken from public sources, organisation websites, followed up with additional web searching. I am not an HR professional, 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.
Overall, 7.5% people of colour is too low, that’s one in thirteen people; and individually the groups where it is zero need to change.
Some Context
All of this needs to be put in context of the overall population (or does it?).
In the UK 13% of the population are People of Colour. That is close to one in eight people. Let’s say one in ten to take account of some of the usual “ah, yes, well, that’s because ...” comments about how special each group is. If you have a group of eight or ten people, why are they all white? And are you doing anything about it?
In the world, very approximately 70% of people are People of Colour, 30% white.
In most population groups there are approximately 50% women and 50% men.
Why does it matter?
It matters. It is not right, it is not fair, it is not good. These are good enough reasons for me.
Others may want further reasons.
The Parker Review (see below) makes its case very clear, for business: alignment with customer base and the talent pool. These points relate to research, science and technology transfer: alignment with society, accessing the talent pool. And it matters at the top of these organisations which is why looking at boards and senior teams is worthwhile.
People look up, and what do they see? Success, possible role models, and either people like them or not.
A few comments
Language - Black, white, people of colour, coloured, non-white, ethnic, Asian, African, Afro-Caribbean, African descent, BAME, BIPOC, under-represented groups, ethnically diverse, diversity, inclusion, equality, inequality. It is complicated; from all I have read I am using “white” and “people of colour”, together everybody.
Tokenism - You have to start somewhere. One is better than none; two is that much more better than one. When is the low number a token, tick the box? When does any number above zero represent real change, real progress, real absorption of the issues?
Check - your privilege; I am a white man. I have seen many instances of racial inequality; I have not experienced it myself, except as a beneficiary.
2. RECENT ACTIVITIY
Parker Review
The Parker Review led by Sir John Parker is “A Report into the Ethnic Diversity of UK Boards” published in 2017. In early 2020 an update report from the Parker Review team was published “Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership”.
From Sir John Parker’s 2020 Foreword: “I sincerely believe that, at a time when the UK needs business to make a crucial contribution, and when public confidence in the market economy is at best fragile, attaining our goal of “One by 21” is more than socially desirable. It is an essential element in our country’s economic future, and the esteem in which our companies are held around the world. We can and must act without further delay ... The business imperatives which we originally set out could not be clearer: 1. Greater alignment with our customer base at home and overseas. 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our home and overseas markets which will influence recruitment patterns for years to come.”
In 2017 the Parker Review set the challenge as follows: “to ensure that by the end of 2021, no member of the FTSE 100 would lack a person of colour as a director. We also encouraged FTSE 250 companies to meet this target by 2024.”
The Parker Review data analysis by EY Consulting in 2020 is based on survey responses; while response rates were high, they do not have a complete data set. Of the responses, 37% of FTSE100 companies did not meet the target; 69% of FTSE 250 Companies did not meet the target. It is not going very well.
Green Park Review
Green Park is a London based leadership consulting and recruitment firm. In February 2021 the Green Park Annual Business Leaders Index records no black chairs, CEOs or CFOs at FTSE 100 companies. That is zero out of 300 people. This is for the first time in six years of analysis.
David Lammy MP
David Lammy is Member of Parliament for Tottenham in London. He has written on racial inequality in student admissions at British universities, notably Oxford University. In 2018 he published data on Oxford’s student admissions, summarising: “You are twice as likely to get into Oxford as a white applicant (24%) than a black applicant (12%). Why? 1 in 4 Oxford colleges did not admit a single black student in a whole year group at least once between 2015-17. Eight colleges less than 1% black. Why?”
Oxford University Council has 26 members, one of whom is a person of colour (4%). It doesn’t look good from either end of the organisation. This matters, for Oxford, and also more widely. Oxford is routinely ranked as the top research university in the world and with the world’s leading medical school. Consider the signalling effects of this elite institution and its approach racial inequality.
Diversity UK
Started in 2012, Diversity UK is “an equality charity that aims to research, advocate and promote ideas for improving diversity and inclusion in Britain. It is an evidence-based initiative that seeks to influence policy, enhance civic engagement and improve the perception of the minority ethnic community in Britain. The purpose of Diversity UK is to advance the education of the public in diversity and inclusion in the workplace, in particular by carrying out research for the public benefit in all aspects of that subject and to publish the useful results.”
Diversity UK is currently focussing on five areas: Amplifying the work of other organisations and campaigns; Collaborating to deliver initiatives; Disseminating research papers, equality initiatives and diversity campaigns through its website and monthly newsletter; Participating in roundtable consultations, panel debates and events; and Promoting race equality by hosting the annual Paul Stephenson lecture.
Diversity UK has focused on appointments in public life, but it has not yet focused the worlds of universities, science and research.
The Hamilton Commission
The Royal Academy of Engineering is one of the learned societies in the UK and is now involved in a commission to address the under-representation of Black people in the STEM sector:
“The Royal Academy of Engineering is partnering with Lewis Hamilton MBE HonFREng to launch the Hamilton Commission, a research project that will work to identify the key barriers to recruitment and progression of Black people in UK motorsport, and provide actionable recommendations to overcome them. Motorsport is unique in the range of roles and responsibilities in a team, particularly for individuals specialising in STEM subjects. The Hamilton Commission presents an opportunity to simultaneously address the under-representation of Black people in UK motorsport and the STEM sector.”
There are a number of learned societies in the group I have looked at. Two very prominent ones have no people of colour on their most senior boards. They are no doubt clever enough to explain the reasons for this; but if doing so, they make a mistake.
30% Club and Athena Swan
The 30% Club is all about gender diversity. The 30% Club was founded in 2010 in the UK and has since evolved into a global mission with chapters in many regions around the world. “Our global mission is to reach at least 30% representation of all women on all boards and C-suites globally.”
I think the Why 30% question is an interesting point in relation to racial diversity. From the 30% Club website: “WHY 30%? When the campaign originally launched in the UK back in 2010, there were just 12% women on FTSE 100 boards and 30% felt like an aspirational stretch target. At that time, we also identified research suggesting that 30% represents a critical mass from which point minority groups can impact boardroom dynamics. Our 30% target is a minimum objective - it represents a floor not a ceiling – ultimately, we are striving for gender balance. Sadly, to this day, 30% women - either at board or senior management level - remains a stretch for many organisations throughout the world.”
I wonder what is the right % to think about for race; I wouldn’t call it a club. [The UK 30% Club Steering Committee has 25 members, 23 women, 2 men, one quarter are people of colour.]
The 30% Club website homepage currently has a notice about racism. “At the 30% Club there is no room for racism. We can’t stand by and watch the brutality of police towards Black people in the US without making it clear that all people are created equal, yet the world does not treat them this way. As we decide our UK targets for the next three years, we feel the time has come to set goals that make clear our commitment to ethnic diversity. At the same time our Inclusion & Diversity working group is taking a deep dive on the issues faced by Black people and other executives from the BAME community, as they attempt to climb the corporate ladder and join boards. We will share our findings and recommendations within the next six months.” I very much look forward to seeing these.
The Athena Swan Charter is a framework which is used across the globe to support and transform gender equality within higher education (HE) and research. Established in 2005 to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine (STEMM) employment, the Charter is now being used across the globe to address gender equality more broadly, and not just barriers to progression that affect women.
The comparison of racial diversity with gender diversity is useful. Of the 41 groups, 1 has no women. Of the other 40 that do have at least one woman, the percentage of women ranges from 13% to 63%, from one to nine women. Where the leader of the group is a woman, there are more women in the group.
3. University Technology Transfer
This article started as a look at racial inequality in university technology transfer in the UK, although it has expanded.
Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs)
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Technology Transfer organisations are as follows. There are 14 TT groups, totalling 132 people, 94 men (71%), 38 women (29%), 10 people of colour (7.6%), 8 men of colour and 2 women of colour; 86 white men and 36 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 15 people.
Of the 14 groups, 7 have no people of colour (50%). Of the other 7 that do have a person of colour, 4 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the seven that do ranges from 8% to 25%, from one to two people.
Overall, the TTOs groups show a similar pattern to that of all the groups I have looked at for racial inequality (TT is at 7.6%), and less good on gender balance.
Training
Early this year I read about the Columbia University (in New York) Diversity and Inclusion in Commercialization and Entrepreneurship programme (DICE). This is a training programme aimed at under-represented groups. The course content is much as one would expect for any good programme on commercialisation and entrepreneurship; the key distinguishing feature is bringing in mentors and role models from under-represented groups and help the students on the course develop their networks.
I am not aware of anything similar in the UK.
TT Associations
AUTM, the US association for university technology transfer people has a committee looking at inequality and an Equity, Diversity & Inclusion - ED&I Statement: AUTM is committed to fostering diversity and inclusion within its Membership and the technology transfer profession. Diversity encompasses, but is not limited to: race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, physical or medical condition, military and veteran status, socioeconomic status, marital and familial status, and sexual orientation. With greater diversity, we can be more just, effective, and creative by bringing varied perspectives, experiences, backgrounds, talents and interests to AUTM. We recognize that to fully and equitably support the pursuit of equal justice, inclusion, and integrity, AUTM must reflect the full spectrum of the world. AUTM pledges to: focus on fairness, diversifying our leadership, and acting with integrity; hold Association leaders and Membership responsible for its practices and actions; consider and give weight to the diversity and inclusion practices of service providers when selecting those with whom we will do business, and increase the diversity of our organization and programming.”
In Europe, the UK association PraxisAuril does not have a similar statement, nor does the European association ASTP. The boards of these organisations have few people of colour. It looks like a very white world; imagine walking into the room as a person of colour.
TT Metrics
In 1999 the Wellcome Trust, HM Treasury and The Gatsby Foundation funded a new seed fund programme in the UK called the University Challenge Fund. For successful applicants there were reporting requirements for 10 years. One question was how many and what proportion of university researchers who applied for awards from the successful Funds were women. It was the first time I saw this reporting requirement in university technology transfer. I have never seen reporting criteria relating to race. I do not know of anywhere that collects it, or notices.
Metrics is a big topic in university technology transfer at the moment. Time to think about racial inequality. The focus of the metrics is Impact, and elsewhere context, activity, environment and impact. Is anyone thinking about racial inequality? Is anyone thinking about the impact of university technology transfer with a racial dimension? - university researchers, TT staff, impact of technologies on certain populations?
4. Other Groups
Scientific Learned Societies and Research Charities
Overall, these groups are low down on the inclusion of people of colour (scientific learned councils are worse than research charities), and relatively better on gender balance.
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Scientific Learned Societies and Research Charities are as follows. There are 19 groups, totalling 235 people, 135 men (57%), 100 women (43%), 13 people of colour (5.5%), 8 men of colour and 5 women of colour; 127 white men and 95 white women. The groups range in size from 7 people to 23 people.
Of the 19 groups, 9 have no people of colour (47%). Of the other 10 that do have a person of colour, 7 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the 10 that do ranges from 5% to 25%, from one to two people.
A number of these groups have equality, diversity and inclusion statements. What counts for more - having an equality, diversity and inclusion statement on your website, or putting people where your policies are? There’s one group of over twenty people in this category with no people of colour; ‘ah, yes, well, you see, that’s because ....’.
Government groups
Overall, these groups are well up on the inclusion of people of colour, and also relatively good on gender balance
From the groups I have looked at, the data for Government groups are as follows; these are public bodies involved in research funding and technology transfer. There are 12 groups, totalling 153 people, 84 men (55%), 69 women (45%), 15 people of colour (9.8%), 7 men of colour and 8 women of colour; 77 white men and 61 white women. The groups range in size from 8 people to 16 people.
Of the 12 groups, 4 have no people of colour (33%). Of the other 8 that do have a person of colour, 5 have one person of colour. The percentage of people of colour in the 8 that do ranges from 7% to 25%, from one to four people.
5. What to do
There are some clear messages from the people I have spoken to about what is needed and what works:
Education - at all levels, in so many places. Start at the schools, teach everyone that science is important, worthwhile careers follow, technology transfer is real, show the role models. Carry on in universities, do the same. Carry on with post-graduate students. Change the mindset, change the culture.
Knowing the process - provide opportunities for people to understand and learn the processes involved in technology transfer.
Network - help students grow and develop their networks; bring people together, bring in role models who can tell their stories and join the networks. Build the community.
Role Models - already mentioned and so important; identify them and bring them in. Link it back to the education, help the parents and teachers understand that science and technology transfer are respectable careers.
Action - ask the questions, send the-mails, ask the boards, the HR department - what are you doing about this vital issue? They may not realise. Ask to look at the equality, diversity and inclusivity statements and activities.
Leadership - recognise the problem, identify and implement the change. Start and don’t stop.
What you do needs to be for the long term; start and do not finish; sustain the programmes. People do not want to see token initiatives which fade away after a couple of years; and it will take a few years of sustained effort to see change; ask the 30% Club. If you start with an experiment, don’t call it an experiment, or a pilot.
Finally
There are many organisations that seek to address gender inequality, in business, and elsewhere, including science, research; there are organisations that investigate and seek to address racial inequality in business, but not in science and research. Overall, 7.5% is a low number, one in thirteen people; groups where it is zero need to change.
It will be great to hear from people about what they are doing to improve this situation. It will also be important to hear from people why they think improving racial equality is important.
In a year’s time, what will the position look like?
Tom Hockaday
February 2021