A Fight to Access the Office

Where do people in marginalized groups go when there is no inclusive and accessible entrance to participate in science?

To be able to access an office space (COVID-19 restrictions aside) is something that most people would take for granted. However, when the elevator is on the other side of a locked corridor of offices belonging to a different department, it is, apparently, allowed me, an individual with a disability, to be denied access to my office for months on end. And the eventual solution might still restrict the access to the office compared to the access that my able-bodied colleagues have.

This raises the question:

Where do people in marginalised groups go when there is no inclusive an accessible entrance to participate in science?

As with all things, the answer is complicated.

For one, it depends on the marginalised group, which will determine the types of barriers faced. It also depends on the support available for the individual and the individuals’ degree of intersectionality¹ (which is the idea that social characteristics, such as race and gender, are connected, for example that a black woman of colour will have an experience that is affected by race, gender and the intersection between the two.)

Unsurprisingly, those groups that face inclusivity and accessibility issues are those that are marginalised and minoritized in the broader society with discrimination. Lack of inclusivity and access issues often occur on the grounds of sex and/or gender, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs, disability and LGBTQIA+ status (this is by no means an exhaustive list). In order for marginalised groups to be able to fully participate in science they need science to be both inclusive and accessible, which are different things. Access means that there are no barriers to an individual’s participation, for example that buildings are wheelchair accessible would be ensuring access for individuals with restricted mobility. Inclusion is the next step. It is actively promoting the information that, for example, the building is accessible. Inclusion is an acknowledgement that the world mostly isn’t accessible and that individuals with accessibility needs often feel excluded.² Inclusion is therefore an active effort to respond to this exclusion by helping overcome the feeling that there is no place for marginalised groups.

It is theorized that individuals belonging to two or more of these groups will often experience discrimination that is non-additive, that is a level of discrimination that amounts to more than just the sum of experiences faced by individuals who belong to only one of these marginalized groups1. Not everyone in our community thinks that this theoretical framework is properly applied (as it sometimes leads to a phenomenon, I like to call, the “oppression Olympics”, which amounts to an argument over who is more oppressed with that being, for some reason, a goal). When applied correctly, however, it leads to an understanding that while structural and societal changes need to be made, we also need to consider the individual’s needs when seeking to be truly inclusive. It is, however, difficult to collect data on intersectionality as the experiences are individual and large data sets are, therefore, incredibly difficult to construct.

In order to work out where marginalized individuals go when there is no accessible and inclusive entrance it needs to be established not just who experiences discrimination, but how they experience it.

Considering the first group – people facing discrimination based on sex and gender – most research is based on the experiences of women, which are shared by all femme presenting individuals, as well as those who are gender diverse in expression and identity. We know that some gender-based discrimination begins at a young age^3,4. It can be as direct as a parent or a teacher suggesting that girls are not as good at mathematics as boys, or as subconscious as the under-marketing of science and engineering-based toys to women and girls⁵. All these problems continue well into academia with women being less likely to publish as last authors⁶, less likely to be given tenured positions⁷ and less likely to be invited to speak at symposiums⁸, even when one corrects for the proportion of women in science. In fact, at a panel at the FENS conference, one of the largest neuroscience conferences in Europe, in 2020 there were more men named Matthew than women⁹. There were no women.

Similar to women, members of racial and ethnic minorities also experience discrimination resulting in them being much less likely to be promoted to tenure positions¹⁰. As a result members of this group are less likely to hold senior positions than white colleagues¹¹. This is coupled with reports of personal and structural challenges¹², as well as discrimination¹³. The panel at the FENS conference mentioned earlier also had more men named Matthew than people of color. There were no people of color.

Less data is available for the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in science and academia, but the impact of the exclusion is striking. I find it difficult to believe that the treatment of transgender issues as a medical condition¹⁴ would have occurred if trans and gender non-conforming individuals had been a part of the scientific community. And for this the queer community are still paying the price today with the continued pathologisation of trans identities¹⁵ and the exclusion of our experiences from research leading to the much quoted but academically refuted idea of rapid onset gender dysphoria¹⁶, one of the most pervasive and harmful arguments against gender-affirming treatment.

Discrimination and lack of access in science is also prevalent for people with disabilities. People with physical disabilities often face more concrete access needs. For all it is easy to put a finger on these problems, it does not always help to find solutions, as seen by my ongoing fight, which I have largely fought without structural support (even from the services and organisations that should have been there to support me), to be able to use my office space. A right that I, along with all my able-bodied colleagues have, but I was prevented from exercising this right. This lack of structural support is coupled with a negative attitude towards those with disabilities¹⁷, which can either stop individuals who need help reaching out or for the support to be denied even when it theoretically exists.

So, I ask again: Where do people in marginalised groups go when there is no inclusive and accessible entrance to participate in science?

Some people, like me, try to push through, to make it work while spending an inordinate amount of time fighting for something we are entitled to. But that takes time, and effort, and for minority groups that may have reduced time compared to their colleagues, such as those with physical disabilities, this is an incredibly difficult thing and puts an additional burden on people who already start behind.

Some people leave science. In this case, determining the reason why can be difficult. A female undergraduate who leaves physics to pursue a different career may be influenced, both subconsciously and consciously, from having no female lecturers, from being always one of only two or three females in a class of fifteen, from hearing at some point during her life that women are just not as good at physics and mathematics as men. Maybe this student really likes the other career they choose, maybe in a world without barriers they would have made the same choice. But until we are in such a world, the inaccessibility of science to women and people of diverse gender identities will always play some role in who can remain in science, and is, therefore, a problem.

Some people manage to push through by pretending they fit whatever norm will allow them to gain access. They put on a costume to merge with the crowd. A trans scientist may decide not to transition or change their name in order for their publications to all be under the same name, which is hugely important for the current system which places incredible weight on the number of publications a scientist has. Some, who succeed by using this method, shut the proverbial door, or reglaze the glass ceiling behind them, as though they believe that if they struggled and made it, that either a) there isn’t a problem, or b) that everyone else should struggle as they did.

It is important to note here that none of these methods of dealing with discrimination inequalities are right or wrong. The situation is wrong, and each person will face it differently and then chart a different course to navigate through it. The situation is not just difficult, but also complicated. Although much less so than most people think. And it is much less intractable.

The upshot is, though, that those of us who are disadvantaged in science should not have to be solely responsible for putting in the effort to change things, but someone must. Because this is not something that will change on its own, and I, for one, am not willing to stand by, while not everyone has equal access in science. So what is the solution? Everyone needs to do the work, whether you will benefit from the changes or not, which brings us to a new and entirely more optimistic question:

What can we do when marginalised groups come up against no inclusive and accessible entrance to participate in science?

The answer to this question would be a whole article on its own (the international labor organization’s paper on promoting diversity and inclusion through workplace adjustments¹⁸ is 78 pages, much more than I have space to cover, and very likely much more than you are wishing to read right now). Therefore, this article now focuses on what we can do as individual students and researchers, and what we can do together in our research groups and PhD programs. And for the sake of brevity, I make a single suggestion – best practice guides for inclusion and accessibility for research groups.

There are a number of reasons behind this suggestion, but the most important is that if there are best practice guides then 1) marginalized individuals don’t have to fight for the same adjustments over and over again and 2) it contributes to a feeling that we are not a problem, and that science is also meant for us.

How would one go about writing such a document? First of all, the document should be written as guidelines that could be updated. This allows them to be non-restrictive and allows for them to change with updated technology, consensus of the community involved and the needs of individuals in the group. This is also great news because it means you don’t have to create a whole complete document by yourself, you just need to start it.

To start with, speak with someone with authority in your group to work out how such a guide can be formalized so that when you leave, the guide remains in place, and so that you don’t have to continually fight for its implementation. It is also worth having discussions about things like accountability at this stage in order to establish what, if anything, should happen if the guidelines are needlessly ignored.

After this pick an access or inclusivity problem. You can pick one, you can pick multiple, or you can allocate them amongst the whole group, so that most things are covered. Do some research on what are the best practice guidelines that individuals that belong to the marginalized community in question support, and then write that up.

For example, if we were to write guidelines for individuals with reduced mobility, one of the first things to consider is that the office or laboratory should be accessible without stairs and there should be an accessible bathroom available. Work events should either be planned as inclusive or have an inclusive option communicated to people ahead of time so that it can be selected if needed. Accessible events mean elevator access where there are stairs, accessible bathrooms, and activities, which people with reduced mobility can participate in. In the event that not all activities are inclusive, those that are should be just as fun. Accessible information about the event and transport to, from and around the location of the event should also be provided to all participants as far ahead of time as possible. If an event is accessible, that should also be stated clearly in the communication about the event. A large part of the world is inaccessible and that assumption, of those with mobility issues, is often that the event will not be accessible so stating clearly when it is can make a huge difference to inclusion (as mentioned earlier inclusion and accessibility are actually different things, and we need to do both if we want to support diversity in science).

The guidelines could also encourage everyone to take part in sensitivity training, recommendations for publication of graphs, images and slides so that people who are color-blind can easily see them, specifications for font selection to assist individuals with dyslexia and information on where individuals can access support and assistance.

If we all put some time and effort in to help create a more accessible and inclusive space for one access issue at a time, we can make a large difference for individuals from minoritized groups who want to be part of science. Maybe then it will be easier to answer the question of how I can participate in science even though I belong to a marginalized group, because we will have established social and structural support in a way that one individual alone could never do.

For those that are interested in writing a best practice guide I will be working with my PhD to produce one which then can also be implemented in individual research groups. If you are interested in writing your own for your own group or PhD program feel free to email me at Zoe.Stawyskyj@gmail.com.

REFERENCES

Crenshaw, K. (1989).
Avraamidou, L. (2020).
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., Meltzoff, A.N., (2017).
Rogers, L.O., Meltzoff, A.N., (2017).
Fine, Cordelia, and Emma Rush. (2018).
Fox, C.W., Ritchey, J.P., Paine, C.E.T., (2018).
Pinho-Gomes, A.-C., et.al., (2020).
Schroeder, J., et.al, N.P.C., (2013).
Human Brain Mapping
Fang, D., (2000).
Hoppe, T.A., et.al., (2019).
Sánchez, J.P., et.al., (2013).
Blackaby, D., Frank, J., (2000).
Reicherzer, S., (2008).
Winter, S., et.al., (2009).
Ashley F. (2020).
Hannam-Swain, S., (2018).
United Nations Promoting Diversity and Inclusion