Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Susan Spilka. Susan is one of the co-founders of the Workplace Equity Project. Susan was Corporate Communications at Wiley for two decades, and was the first CHORUS Communications & Marketing Director. She is now Director of Strategic Communications at TBI Communications, a consultancy serving the publishing and nonprofit sectors.
This year, Emerald Publishing commissioned three surveys on academic and public views of what inequity feels like, the meaning of inclusivity, the barriers to it, and the benefits of an inclusive society. The surveys also explored perceptions of the role of research in overcoming the challenges to inclusivity and possible actions for change. The academic survey was sent to over 130,000 researchers in 202 countries from Emerald’s database; more than 1,000 people in 99 countries completed it. General public data came from two samples of 1,000 people each in the UK and US, via One Poll. Analysis of this research was published over the summer as “The Global Inclusivity Report 2020”, along with a wealth of supporting data, insights, and commentary from thought leaders in the research community (new content continues to be published regularly).
The AHRECS Team feels passionately about inclusivity and prejudice in academia/science, so we read this Scholarly Kitchen piece with keen interest. The reasons for the differences between countries were especially interesting.
Understanding the Cycle
It is well-documented in the research literature that inclusive workplaces lead to higher levels of job satisfaction, better staff retention, greater productivity, and more innovation. There is so much evidence to cite, but these two pioneers, McKinsey and Catalyst, have done a lot to build the business case for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). It is very clear that where diversity and inclusivity are prioritized, institutions are more likely to attract talent and funding, and increase the impact of their research output.