Written Evidence Submitted by
Robyn Kiy, Khoula Afzal, and Mahrukh Shameem
(DIV0059)
We are students from the Discovery Medicine North (DiMeN) Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), and based in Russell Group institutions across Northern England. Upon seeing the lack of awareness and urgency around improving equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), we have formed a cross-institutional EDI initiative (‘DiMeN Diversity’). DiMeN Diversity works to improve awareness of inequity within the STEM community, and provide information and interactive sessions to equip the STEM community (particularly PhD students) with skills and tools to help them address these issues and work towards improving them within their workplace.
In this report we highlight the EDI-related issues that science is facing today as seen from a wider perspective, as well as from our own experiences. We strongly believe that more can be done by the government to improve the diversity of the STEM workforce, both in academia and industry. As PhD students, we have personal experience of the lack of diversity and equity in STEM for several marginalised groups, particularly those at the intersection of multiple groups. PhD is the highest academic level qualification and thus often a launch pad, or even a prerequisite, for more senior roles within STEM. It is apparent that issues around widening participation in doctoral education are less understood, and subsequently have received less investment, compared to undergraduate schemes. This has led to substantial underrepresentation of many groups within the population pursuing PhDs in STEM, particularly amongst Black individuals, and those with disabilities (Williams, et al., 2019).
Women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are all underrepresented in STEM. This underrepresentation is a result of a combination of factors, and becomes increasingly apparent as seniority increases.
According to UCAS data provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), in 2019 only 26% of graduates in the core STEM subjects identified as female. Within the core STEM subjects there remains sizeable disparity between the number of female graduates, with females accounting for 43% of physical science graduates in 2019, but only 16% of computer science graduates (STEM Women, 2021). The gender gap increases in size as graduates join the workforce, with women occupying just 24% of roles within the STEM workforce (WISE, 2022). Again, this relatively small number of women are disproportionately employed in the professional science sector, as opposed to the IT and engineering sectors; just 10% of engineering professionals are women. As aforementioned, inequity increases with seniority. For example, a 2012 study found that despite 43% of medicine lecturers and senior lecturers being women, only 12% of professors in the subject were (CaSE, 2014). Furthermore, when age is considered, women in academia are less likely to have progressed to professional level than men across all subject areas. Things are no better in industry, with women only making up 1% of the workforce in STEM skilled trades in 2008, an increase of just 0.1% from 2003 (CaSE, 2014).
When looking at data around those classified as ethnic minorities the data is startling. Data from HESA showed that in 2019, only 19.2% of the STEM academic workforce were Asian, and just 1.8% were Black (Joice and Tetlow, 2020). In line with this shocking statistic, whilst the UK has 10,560 white science professors, only 960 are Asian and 65 are Black, again highlighting the fact that minorities who embark on academic STEM careers are less likely to be promoted. The term ‘ethnic minorities’ itself is problematic when discussing representation within the STEM workforce as some ethnic minority groups are more active in the STEM workforce than other ethnic groups, including white individuals (CaSE, 2014).
Finding statistics for the representation of people with disabilities in STEM is difficult. The number of students who identify with having a disability have not increased as a percentage from 2007 to 2019 (Royal Society). Additionally, people with disabilities are 57% less likely to pursue postgraduate study than those without disabilities (CaSE, 2014). These data display that whilst people are becoming more aware of what constitutes a disability, there is little data to visualise the representation of disability in STEM.
COVID has also massively impacted the visibility of these groups by disrupting their ability to conduct work and progress. While the data around this topic is incoming, it is easy to see how societal pressures affected their work e.g. with the amount of women providing unpaid care drastically increasing (UN, 2020). This includes how women were expected to look after their families once the pandemic hit, and how cultural expectations meant that these groups were restricted to these roles and thus were not progressing. This also applies to people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds who were disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
There are many factors which contribute to the underrepresentation of minority groups in STEM, several of which begin at very early stages in life. Intersectionality is pivotal when looking at the underrepresentation of these groups in STEM, as often those individuals at the intersection of multiple marginalised groups are more likely to experience disadvantages throughout their early life and education, and are thus likely to be underrepresented in STEM careers to a higher degree.
A key factor in the underrepresentation of the aforementioned groups in the STEM workforce is varied access to education. Students from lower income areas may not attend institutions which provide extra-curricular exposure to diverse STEM careers through activities such as career talks, outreach, or work experience. Furthermore, advertising and campaigning by prestigious and research-intensive universities is likely to be less prevalent in lower income areas. This has a knock-on effect on student self-belief and understanding of the career options available to them, and as such students begin to inadvertently limit themselves as they are deterred from applying to STEM degrees and subsequently working within STEM.
With specific focus on girls, societal and parental influences at a young age result in notably gendered career ambitions by GCSE level (Hutchinson et al., 2011). Unconscious bias from teachers and parents are commonplace, with studies showing that girls are less likely to report being encouraged to continue studying STEM subjects than boys (CaSE, 2014). The underrepresentation of women in STEM is particularly shocking as females consistently outperform males at GCSE, A-level, and degree level (CaSE, 2014).
Individuals with disabilities remain underrepresented in STEM, with a report from the Royal Society stating that ‘STEM students who are blind or deaf (or have a serious visual/hearing impairment) have not increased as a percentage of all STEM students’ between 2007/08 to 2018/19 (Joice and Tetlow, 2021). Without an increase in the number of people with disabilities undertaking higher education in STEM, it is unsurprising that the representation of people with disabilities in the STEM workforce remains worryingly low. This is likely to be worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, as many disabled and chronically ill people are still disproportionately at risk, and thus still shielding.
At A-level, biology, chemistry, and maths was the most popular subject combination for all non-white ethnic minority groups, whereas the rank of this combination was much lower for white individuals (Rodeiro, 2009). However, this ‘promising’ statistic may be misleading with regards to the resultant STEM workforce. Although UK domiciled ethnic minority students are more likely to attend university by age 19 than their white counterparts with the same grades, several studies show that ethnic minorities are less likely to attend higher tariff universities or achieve a first-class degree than white students (CaSE, 2014). This potential inequity in quality of higher education, exposure to STEM research, and attainment of high grades all contribute to the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the STEM workforce.
1 in 6 children in the UK is officially classified as poor, and this substantially impacts a child’s engagement with STEM. Deprived areas have 30% fewer ‘good’ schools according to Ofsted (Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, 2013). In 2012, state schools were found to have only 31% of students opting to take separate sciences, as opposed to 83% of students at selective schools. This is exacerbated when considering schools with a higher proportion of students eligible for free school meals, an indicator of socioeconomic disadvantage, where uptake of separate science is lower again (CaSE, 2014). This inequity is exacerbated post-compulsory education, as many individuals from disadvantaged social backgrounds are unable to afford further education or even the fees necessary to apply to universities, thus limiting themselves from many skilled STEM careers, particularly those in academia. Despite higher education being marketed as ‘free at the point of use’, this is not strictly true, as often individuals do not receive enough financial support from the government to enable them to afford accommodation and sustenance, and thus depend on family – something which is not always possible for those with lower-income families. As such, it is unsurprising that socioeconomic disadvantage can have a huge impact on career aspirations and the likelihood of someone ultimately working in STEM.
In addition to these hurdles, there are also many reasons why these underrepresented groups may actively choose to avoid careers in STEM. These include: anxieties over fitting in due to lack of diversity and relevant role models; concerns over accessibility needs; and concerns over potential career progression if individuals require time off e.g. for caring responsibilities, chronic illness or disability, maternity leave.
The implications of these groups being underrepresented can be visualised as a cycle. As underrepresentation is already apparent, there is a serious lack of role models for marginalised groups in the STEM workforce. Few people in these roles means that few people can visualise themselves in those roles, and thus do not apply for those jobs. By not seeing themselves represented in these careers, many people do not see the potential that they can apply and work in these areas.
Furthermore, these environments are renowned for not being inclusive with complaints around unconscious bias, toxic work culture, and being dominated with white, cisgender, heterosexual men (Shift Learning, 2020). This can lead to an environment, whether academic or industrial, being perceived as unwelcoming to anyone who feels ‘other’. This deters people both from applying, and from staying on once they have roles within STEM. This means that the demographic within the STEM workforce does not shift substantially, and as such no major changes (e.g. improved accessibility, flexible working) which would encourage underrepresented groups to apply, are implemented.
Not only does this toxic cycle impact the STEM workforce, it also affects the technologies created, the research conducted, and the customers or patients they serve. One example of this is facial recognition technology, which has been shown to exhibit racial bias on multiple occasions. As previously mentioned, the majority of people developing this kind of technology are likely to be white males. This can lead to (perhaps unintentional) bias in testing, resulting in ethnic minorities (particularly women within these groups) being misidentified by such technology (Castelvecchi, 2020). This is just one, highly publicised implication of underrepresentation in STEM – there are thousands of other examples.
The Royal Society for Athena SWAN created the Athena SWAN Charter in 2005 via government funding with commitment to recognising and advancing careers of women in STEM education and research (House of Commons., 2016). Other initiatives include flexible STEM degrees for individuals without science qualifications as well as individual institutional STEM scholarships for high-achieving students. While the latter is a step forward, it fails to recognise that students from diverse backgrounds are already held back in lower education, making it harder for them to achieve high grades and gain such scholarships.
The Equality Act 2010 was created to protect discrimination within the workplace. Whilst the act replaced previous anti-discrimination laws, strengthening the power of the laws and making them easier to understand, it is evident that the act itself needs to be updated to fit recent times. These include things such as legal recognition for non-binary individuals (Pride in STEM., 2021). In a report published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (2021), it was stated that while the Employment Statutory Code of Practice provides guidance to employers for hiring people from diverse backgrounds, the framework can easily be manipulated by recruiting individuals who meet multiple protected characteristics. While government laws aim to increase diversity within the workplace, they seem to fall short in meeting the desired goal.
In June 2020, the Government Science and Engineering profession refreshed the Diversity and Inclusion Action Group (DIAG), with aims to achieve better understanding of diversity within its membership to adequately support and address identified issues. From spring 2022, they aim to have Chief Scientific Advisors (CSAs) promote diversity, equality, and inclusivity (DEI) through quarterly campaigns in their organisation, whilst also expecting collaboration between members and local EDI leads in organisations. In addition to this, GSE aims to harness best practices and shared approaches by creating a join-up across CS diversity networks for race, disability, social mobility, gender and LGBTQIA+ with representation at each forum by March 2022 (GSE., 2021). This shows a positive step towards supporting diversity within STEM.
Current methods to address issues of diversity within STEM tend to take on a top-down approach. We suggest that the problem is much more complex and deep rooted than recruitment alone, requiring the government to do more to address the root causes.
Education: With the right investment into individuals at education level, it is possible to increase diversity within STEM and make the workplace a fairer and more inclusive environment for all. Due to socioeconomic factors, individuals from some disadvantaged groups may not be exposed to the large variety of fields within STEM creating a sense of non-belonging when they reach the stage of making career choices. Increasing exposure of such children to the possibilities within STEM could massively impact the direction in which they choose to take their career. Particularly, making children aware at a young age that there is space for people like them within higher STEM positions could stop individuals being ‘put-off’ from following certain careers. Increased workshop initiatives and collaborations between schools and higher education/ STEM institutions would support this. We believe that by supporting schemes and organisations such as ‘The Brilliant Club’ (https://thebrilliantclub.org/about/) and In2scienceUK (https://in2scienceuk.org/about/), the government could eventually have a remarkable impact on the diversity of STEM graduate students, and thus the STEM workforce. These organisations strive to introduce disadvantaged students to STEM, and the possibility of STEM careers. As lower-income students are often at the intersection of several marginalised groups, by supporting initiatives such as this, the government would be supporting a diverse range of people as they discover and pursue STEM.
Awareness and training: It is evident that lack of diversity within STEM becomes more problematic with superiority. Increasing recognition of the benefits of diversity in STEM is more likely to push employers to hire from more diverse backgrounds rather than simply ‘ticking boxes’ to comply with laws. More diverse individuals represented within senior positions would not only improve inclusivity within the workplace as whole, it would also serve as a motivating factor for individuals at education level to aim for higher positions within STEM. This can be achieved through mandatory training for people already within higher positions. Increasing awareness of diversity and improved training for individuals in senior positions will create an environment of more acceptance, understanding and inclusivity of each other.
Legislative improvements: Diversity in STEM continues to be an issue. Individuals from diverse backgrounds are challenged at every stage of their career and without the right laws protecting them, it is difficult to see improvement. We are calling for the government to improve current laws and introduce new laws to better protect individuals who come from diverse and marginalised backgrounds. We also ask the government to introduce harsher laws for employers who fail to comply with existing diversity laws.
Furthermore, we ask that flexible hours and supportive accommodations be made for workers within STEM. It is not possible to expect everyone to meet the same rules and work schedules. For example, people with children or those with physical or mental disabilities may find working from home easier than commuting to a workplace. This is particularly important in higher education where individuals often feel pressure to keep working despite suffering mentally and physically due to the failure of the government to provide adequate funding extensions and support for taking temporary leave from education. With set support provided by the government, individuals will feel reassured that they are able to study and work without having to worry. Supporting this should be advice to employers about how such accommodations will be beneficial.
References
● All Things Being Equal? Equality and diversity in careers education, information, advice and guidance. Hutchinson et al, 2011.
● Campaign for Science and Engineering, 2014. Improving Diversity in STEM. [online] www.sciencecampaign.org.uk. Available at: <https://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/static/uploaded/50c4b928-d252-4ce8-825065f92d8deca3.pdf> [Accessed 12 January 2022].
● Castelvecchi, D., 2020. Is facial recognition too biased to be let loose?. Nature, 587(7834), pp.347-349.
● Improving diversity in STEM careers, 2016. House of Commons.
● Joice, W. and Tetlow, A., 2021. Disability STEM data for students and academic staff in higher education 2007/08 to 2018/19. [online] Jisc. Available at: <https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/topics/diversity-in-science/210118-disability-STEM-data-for-students-and-staff-in-higher-education.pdf> [Accessed 12 January 2022].
● Shift Learning, 2020. What Researchers Think About the Culture They Work In.
● Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, 2013. State of the Nation 2013: social mobility and child poverty in Great Britain. [online] Available at: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292231/State_of_the_Nation_2013.pdf> [Accessed 12 January 2022].
● State of the Nation, Social Mobility and Child Poverty commission, 2013
● STEM Women. 2021. Women in STEM: Percentages of Women in STEM Statistics. [online] Available at: <https://www.stemwomen.com/blog/2021/01/women-in-stem-percentages-of-women-in-stem-statistics> [Accessed 12 January 2022].
● United Nations, 2020. Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Women. [online] Available at: <https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Policy-brief-The-impact-of-COVID-19-on-women-en.pdf> [Accessed 14 January 2022].
● Uptake of GCSE and A-level subjects in England by Ethnic Group, Cambridge Assessment. Rodeiro, 2009.
● Williams, P., Bath, S., Arday, J. and Lewis, C., 2019. The Broken Pipeline: Barriers to Black PhD Students Accessing Research Council Funding. [online] Leading Routes. Available at: <https://leadingroutes.org/mdocs-posts/the-broken-pipeline-barriers-to-black-students-accessing-research-council-funding> [Accessed 14 January 2022].
● WISE. 2022. Statistics - WISE. [online] Available at: <https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/resources-for-action/statistics/> [Accessed 12 January 2022].
(January 2022)