Written evidence submitted by the Society for Applied Microbiology (DIV0028)

The Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Science and Technology Committee’s Call for Evidence on Diversity in STEM. SfAM is pleased to see the Committee issue a call for evidence so that the STEM sector can recruit and retain as diverse as possible talent pool since this is critical for advancing the sciences. 

Having previously contributed to the APPG on Diversity and Inclusion in STEM’s consultations, this response draws upon SfAM’s diversity monitoring survey which was issued to its members in December 2020.[1] It is important to note that the data used in this response was from a survey issued to SfAM’s entire membership, including international members. Also, of SfAM’s 1,773 members, 217 responded, equating to 8% of SfAM’s membership.

This response also draws upon the diversity monitoring survey issued to all SfAM committees and staff in November – December 2021. The survey was sent to 64 SfAM staff and committee members and 26 members responded, this equates to an overall response rate of 40.63%.

The nature or extent to which women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM in academia and industry

Below are SfAM’s figures from SfAM’s diversity monitoring survey issued to SfAM’s committees and staff in November-December 2021.

Gender

69.23% of respondents identified as a woman and 7.69% identified as non-binary. With regards to gender identity, 96.15% of respondents did not identify as trans.

Ethnicity

The survey respondents were predominantly white with 76.92% from a white background.

People with disabilities and long-term health conditions

When asked whether they considered themselves to have a disability or long-term condition (such as dyslexia, diabetes, arthritis, a heart condition, or a mental health condition) 38.46% of respondents stated yes.

Socio-economic variables

65.38% of respondents attended a state run or state-funded school within the UK (Non-selective and Selective) compared to 11.54% outside the UK. A total of 19.23% of respondents attended an independent or fee-paying school. When asked, when you were 18, had any of your parents or guardians completed a university degree course or equivalent, 84.62% responded no. 

Below are SfAM’s figures around underrepresented groups based on a diversity monitoring survey SfAM issued to the SfAM membership in December 2020.[2]

Gender

Of 213 respondents (4 skipped), 52.8% identified as male compared to 47.2% who identified as female. None of our respondents identified as non-binary, prefer not to say, or prefer to self-describe. With regards to gender identity, .48% (1 member) identified as Trans and .48% (1 member) preferred not to say with regards to their gender identity from the 210 who responded (with 7 skipping the question).

Questions relating to gender are asked in numerous ways. However, for the purpose of diversity monitoring, we are particularly interested in gender, as a socially constructed concept, rather than sex, which relates to biological characteristics. We explored trans identity as a separate follow-up question, as it is incorrect and inappropriate to list trans as an option in the original gender question. Under the Equality Act, “gender reassignment” is listed as a protected characteristic, however “gender identity” is preferred as a less intrusive question.

Ethnic Minorities

Survey respondents were predominantly white with 61.17% from a white background and ethnic minorities comprised 38.83% of survey respondents. It is important to note, that this is not representative of the known figures for the UK (~14%). SfAM has a global membership with 482 international members, and the diversity monitoring survey was open to all members in all countries. A breakdown of ethnic backgrounds is provided below.

People with disabilities and long-term health conditions

12.74% of survey respondents considered themselves to have a disability or long-term condition (such as dyslexia, diabetes, arthritis, a heart condition, or a mental health condition) and meet the Equality Act definition of disability with 3.77% of respondents preferring not to say. 

Socio-economic variables

We asked our membership what type of school they attended for the majority of time between the ages of 11-16. 37.74% of survey respondents attended a state-run or state-funded school in the UK with 5.66% of survey respondents attending an independent or fee-paying school in the UK. 

We also asked our membership, when you were 18, had any of your parents or guardians completed a university degree course or equivalent (e.g., BA, BSc or higher) and our survey revealed more than half (57.62%) of respondents parents or guardians had not completed a university degree course or equivalent at the age of 18 years. 

The reasons why these groups are underrepresented

Ableism

At SfAM we recognise that ableism is endemic in society and that the barriers faced by disabled people are heightened in STEM. Addressing ableism requires significant cultural change, through challenging ableist attitudes and enabling inclusive cultures and practices. For some people with disabilities, it is extremely difficult to find flexible and/or part-time working options. Therefore, working conditions and policies must be revised to include health and safety, flexible working, and assurances.[3]

Conferences and events are fundamental for career progression as they provide opportunities for networking and collaboration. Underrepresented groups could be less likely to attend science conferences and events for a variety of reasons such as high costs for travel, lack of physical accessibility, or caring responsibilities prohibiting attendance (a higher percentage of underrepresented groups have caring responsibilities than represented groups).[4] Therefore, it is vital that we reduce barriers to attendance and make conferences more inclusive. As a member of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health (EDIS), we are committed to continuously improving the way we run conferences and events at SfAM.

Career Progression

Inequality of career progression to senior roles is a huge concern for many underrepresented groups. In 2020, there were only 25 black, female professors at UK Universities.[5] Furthermore, of the 14 black, female professors profiled in the Guardian's 'Portraits of UK black female professors' only 2 women were from STEM backgrounds.[6]

One contributing factor for low representation amongst senior STEM positions is the degree attainment gap, which has one of the biggest inequality gaps by ethnic background.[7] The degree attainment gap, which refers to the difference in ‘top degree’ (First or 2:1) awarded to students, means that a substantial proportion of white British students receive degree classifications compared to UK-domiciled students from minority ethnic groups. The Universities UK and National Union of Students’ 2019 report found that there is a 13% gap between the likelihood of white students and students from BAME backgrounds receiving a 1st or 2:1 degree.[8] This negatively affects students’ access to postgraduate research opportunities, which as a result impedes their abilities to obtain senior positions.

Another significant factor as to why these groups have less representation in senior positions is that career progression in STEM jobs is often measured by research output. Researchers regularly work excess hours to constantly produce papers and be seen as competitive. This measurement particularly dissuades and discourages women and early career researchers with family caring responsibilities from pursuing STEM research and development roles. STEM employers and funding institutions should look to discourage working long hours with unrealistic deadlines by rewarding more jobs and grants to researchers based on their research ideas rather than the number of outputs they have produced.

Educational Attainment

Another factor is unconscious bias towards educational attainment. Managers often consider the reputation of the university an individual attended, favouring elite schools, when selecting candidates for job positions or promotions. However, individuals decide to attend universities based on many factors, such as financial costs, location, and caring responsibilities, not just the most prestigious school they are accepted to (which are factors that already disadvantage underrepresented groups). This bias also perpetuates bias at the educational attainment level. As a 2018 report from the BBC found, while the average intake of black first-year undergraduates across the UK in 2016 was 8%, only 1.5% of the University of Cambridge’s and 1.2% at Oxford University’s intakes were black.  Underrepresented individuals thus face compounding bias from the start of their career (at the educational level), during recruitment, and throughout career progression.

The implications of these groups being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry

Research undertaken by Dr Nicola Rollock, catalogues the experiences of UK black female professors and the impacts of their experiences. The research found that with a culture of passive and explicit bullying including racial stereotyping and microaggressions, respondents felt compelled to go out of their way to prove their expertise and competence. This meant professors overworked themselves to overprepare for meetings or accrue additional outputs to ‘prove’ their suitability for their position or a promotion. This in turn has led to burn out and underrepresented individuals exiting their organisation or worse, profession.[9] Losing this talent ultimately means that the science sector loses diverse and unique insights that help progress it to meet future challenges. It must be emphasised, that this also applies to other female professors who are not necessarily from ethnic minority backgrounds.

A great deal of research has found that the more diverse and inclusive a company is, the more profitable and productive it is. McKinsey and Company’s 2019 report found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile. Likewise, the report found that the top-quartile companies for ethnic diversity on executive teams outperformed those in the fourth quartile by 36% in profitability.[10] It is therefore beneficial to the UK economy as well as underrepresented individuals in terms of their career advancement opportunities to have more diversity at every level of organisations.

What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles

Anti-racism or race equity work has been a focus for many member organisations within STEM. SfAM established its Anti-racism Working Group (ARWG) in January 2021 to identify any forms of systemic racism that touch the lives of staff, committees, and members - with a goal of ensuring SfAM is an anti-racist organisation. By examining how historic practices may have prohibited equal participation in the organisation’s work and that of members, the ARWG improves SfAM by having difficult conversations, being self-critical, and facing the realities of the changes needed to make SfAM’s work better. The ARWG provides a safe space for members to call out racist behaviour within the society. It also assesses the Society’s processes to ensure there are no barriers to inclusion and shares best practices.

SfAM is committed to ensuring all SfAM conferences and events are as inclusive as possible. SfAM’s conferences incorporate EDI conversations in its programming and endeavour to showcase the diversity of people working throughout Microbiology. Moreover, working with organisations like EDIS, SfAM hopes to create a wider cultural shift in the science sectors’ approach to conferences and events by sharing best practice.

In addition to STEM organisations improving their processes, there have been recruitment and retention measures to address underrepresentation in STEM roles. However, SfAM encourages employing numerous recruitment and retention measures, dependent on circumstances, as one single approach or policy may not be effective for every organisation.

Blinding Job Applications

Research conducted in 2019 by the Centre for Social Investigation found that despite submitting identical CVs and cover letters, “ethnic minorities needed to send 60% more applications in order to receive as many call-backs as the majority group.”[11]   Blinding job applications, whereby applicants’ personal data (such as their name, age, or university) is removed during the assessment process, helps address recruiters’ unconscious bias around those variables.

Mentoring

Mentoring and networking schemes, such as Black British Professionals in STEM (BBSTEM),[12] Sheffield Hallam Students’ Union BAME Ambassador Scheme,[13] and Beyond Barriers Student Mentoring Scheme at Kingston University,[14] provide diverse role models that encourage and support minority students in STEM careers. With first-hand experience of navigating barriers to a STEM career as a minority, these mentors offer mentees support, networking opportunities, and access to resources that they may otherwise have difficulty obtaining.

It is important to note that the responsibility of encouraging STEM careers with underrepresented groups should not fall to the minority participants of an organisation. In many cases, underrepresented individuals have been overly burdened with being “Diversity Champions” for their employer while also working full time on their research. This can adversely affect their research performance and outputs, further impeding their ability to progress to senior positions in their careers. Thus, employers should properly recognise and value the contributions of volunteers in these roles. Taking on the responsibility of supporting mentees or identifying ED&I initiatives for an organisation should not be viewed as an additional activity to one’s “proper” job. These roles should be considered crucial and in conjunction with individuals’ “primary” jobs, particularly for employees’ performance reviews.

What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified

Below are some recommendations provided by our members.

1. Publish all EDI statistics – In addition to gender pay gap reporting, we must routinely report on diversity as part of annual reporting to address under-representation and to facilitate the analysis of intersectional pay gaps.

2. Review assessment practices and promote positive action – Funding bodies such as UKRI could require HEIs and institutions applying for funding to provide evidence of action plans designed to address diversity and under-representation, which go beyond Athena SWAN awards.

3. Encourage use of Equality Impact Assessments and require them to be published - Equality Impact Assessments are best practice for considering the impact of a policy/event/funding scheme on groups with protected characteristics as a transparent way of demonstrating consideration of equality and inclusion. 

4. Implement good practice with more emphasis on mainstreaming - Eliminating barriers through making broad changes to support underrepresented groups. For example by reviewing reasonable adjustment policies and practices for disabled researchers.

5. Effective part-time provision for under-represented groups - Funding for specifically part-time researchers or researchers from under-represented backgrounds.  

6. Increase and improve grants supporting paternity and maternity leave - While UKRI and Research Councils stipulate that grant recipients are entitled to take maternity/paternity leave, the paid leave amounts can vary by grant provider.[15]   This often negatively influences research recruitment decisions for diverse candidates.[16]   A 2014 NPA survey of 66 institutions found only 26% of postdocs, paid directly by external funders, were paid maternity leave.[17]   For those seeking paid paternity leave, the percentage ranged between 15% to 39%, depending on the postdoc funding source.

Moreover, confusion around what aspects of a grant is covered by paid maternity/paternity leave, can negatively impact research outputs and further dissuade researchers for applying for grants. As an anonymous researcher cited by the Guardian in 2017 explained, only the researcher’s salary costs were covered by the maternity/paternity leave, but the additional experimental costs (e.g. maintaining wet lab costs) were not. Those additional costs to maintain the experiment were considered “exceptional circumstances,” which are not required and only granted on a case-by-case basis.[18]  Future grants should always support maternity/paternity leave and clarify what recipients are entitled to in order to attract diverse applicants and retain that talent.

January 2022