Blog Viewer

Volume LIV, Number 2

The Role of Research Leaders in Enhancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Directions from Current Research and Opportunities for Systemic Organizational Transformation

Jennifer E. Taylor, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Rush Medical Center and University

This Special Issue (SI) on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) of the Journal of Research Administration, of which this article is a part, was developed to highlight the central role that research administrators can play in contributing to the recruitment, retention, advancement, and overall career success of faculty who are often underrepresented and subject to bias in universities, medical centers, and other research institutions as a function of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship, or Indigenous status. Given that institutions often have other offices and administrators devoted to this issue (e.g., many have an Office of Diversity with a senior administrator assigned specifically to enhancing diversity), the question may be raised about why research administrators, at all levels, should view as a central component of their job description working to increase the numbers and success of diverse faculty and students from the undergraduate to post-doctoral levels, and in internships and residents/fellowships. In this paper, and the others in this Special Issue, we hope to provide an overview of the answer to this question. Additionally, we will provide an overview of the results of recent work on what issues contribute to difficulties in recruiting, retaining faculty, and advancing faculty from under-represented groups across disciplines, including into senior faculty and administrative leadership positions, and shed light on ways research administrators at all levels may contribute to achieving these goals. We hope that this later discussion will provide a foundation for those research administrators who are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion in their institutions but from disciplines or scholarly areas that have not provided a foundation on the area to be able to move forward in their DEI efforts quickly and effectively. 

In attempting to achieve the above goals, we will provide a brief discussion of current examples of national and international support for why we should all be engaged in increasing DEI, an overview of some of the major national initiatives to enhance DEI in research institutions and disciplines, the results of recent studies of those efforts, and some examples of ways research administrators can draw on those findings to focus their efforts. We hope that this discussion will provide a resource to help guide efforts by research administrators toward further exploring the rapidly growing evidence-based literature on challenges faced by those seeking to expand the levels of DEI in their institutions and nationally, as well as provide a few illustrations of the many valuable ways research administrators can engage in such systemic and systematic change efforts.

Of course, many research leaders may already have a clear commitment to enhancing DEI in their institutions and professions. For them and all research administrators, we hope that this SI will lead to JRA being increasingly viewed as a place to share ideas and submit research regarding these and to view JRA as a resource to which they can turn to learn more about the most innovative and effective strategies for enhancing their DEI efforts. 

Why Research Administrators Should Focus on DEI: National Policy Regarding DEI as Central to the Work of Federal Agencies

Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion is a central goal of the nation’s scientific community. Illustratively, the National Science Foundation’s budget request to Congress for 2023 (https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/index.jsp) has, as one of the core initiatives for funding which was sought, the “NSF Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (NSF INCLUDES)” (https://www.includesnetwork.org/home). This initiative builds upon and continues NSF’s focus on expanding the representation of those from underrepresented communities and backgrounds, particularly in STEM fields, and more broadly in knowledge creation through science, engineering, the humanities, and creative endeavors” (NSF, 2023). They go on to underscore that “NSF INCLUDES [initiative] supports projects that advance the contributions of African Americans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Native Pacific Islanders, persons with disabilities, persons from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and women and girls from many academic and professional disciplines across the STEM education continuum.” NSF INCLUDES is a result of NSF identifying “fostering diversity and inclusion” as core values in the newest strategic plan.

The emphasis on diversity and inclusion is not new to NSF or reflected only in the NSF INCLUDES initiative. Within NSF, the ADVANCE program (https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/advance-organizational-change-gender-equity-stem) was established in 2001 and has provided funding to dozens of institutions since then to “enhance the systemic factors that support equity and inclusion and to mitigate the systemic factors that create inequities in the academic profession and workplaces.”  In the goals statement, ADVANCE says that they target, “…For example, practices in academic departments that result in the inequitable allocation of service or teaching assignments may impede research productivity, delay advancement, and create a culture of differential treatment and rewards. Similarly, policies and procedures that do not mitigate implicit bias in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions could lead to women and racial and ethnic minorities [as well as those impacted by bias stemming from intersectionality] being evaluated less favorably, perpetuating historical under-participation in STEM academic careers, and contributing to an academic climate that is not inclusive” (NSF, 2020).

Promoting support for developing a more diverse and equitable scientific workforce is no less of a priority for other federal agencies that support research and creative activities. This broad emphasis reflects Executive Order 13985 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/), which outlines a whole-of-government mandate to advance equity for all Americans through a comprehensive approach to all government practices. Reflecting this emphasis, for example, the National Institute of Health (NIH, 2020) and all its affiliated Institutes, Centers, and Divisions for instance, has sought applications for diversity supplements to funded proposals that are “intended to improve the diversity of the research workforce by recruiting and supporting post-baccalaureate, predoctoral students, post-doctorates, and eligible investigators from groups that are underrepresented in health-related research.” Similarly, the emphasis on enhancing diversity is also present for funding across other forms of creative activity. Illustratively, The Strategic Plan for 2022-26 of the National Endowment for the Arts (https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-2026-Strategic-Plan-Feb2022.pdf), with the quite different focus of much of the work it often funds, has a cross-cutting objective that states, “The NEA will model diversity, equity inclusion, and accessibility in the arts through all its activities and operations.”

Other funding sources for research and creative activity, including many non-profit/foundation sources and even business/industry, reflect and have adopted the emphasis on diversity of federal agencies, particularly as they partner with and build on work funded by those agencies. What should be clear to research administrators is that as they seek sponsored funding for the scientific and creative work of faculty, staff, and students, they must reflect a clear commitment to, and engagement in, the development and advancement of a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive community of those engaged in research and creative activity within their institutions and nationally.

Although the above discussion focuses on research policy within the United States, it should be clear that there is a significant emphasis on increasing inclusion and equity in the research communities of many other nations. Illustratively, as noted by Campbell and Bourbonnais (2023), Canada’s Employment Equity Act of 1995, “whose purpose is to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the labor market and that employers correct the disadvantages that individuals in these groups experience (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2022).” Campbell and Bourbonnais (2023) go on to note that underrepresentation occurs across almost nations for which studies exist, “with women underrepresented relative to men across all groups, and evidence of significant differences in the representation of historically racialized groups. This under-representation points to long-standing, inflexible barriers to access and participation (Henry et al., 2017).” Overall then, given the importance of having diverse and varied viewpoints involved if we are to create more comprehensive and fully-informed knowledge bases in and across disciplines, as well as for the key roles that a fully diverse faculty and staff research community have in attracting and retaining the next generation of scholars, from all backgrounds, research administrators must play a strong and central role in helping to create inclusive communities in our institutions.

Strategies for Intervention and Outreach

Articles in this and previous issues of JRA, and across the broader literature, have highlighted a wide array of factors that influence the success of the recruitment, retention, development, advancement, and career satisfaction of women and others from under-represented backgrounds, as well as specific forms of obstacles and barriers they encounter in personal and professional settings. Fortunately, for those new to issues of DEI and those who may have had less exposure to the literature than they desire, there are at least several significant sources that have been central to generating the knowledge base in this area and providing syntheses of that work. As noted, the NSF ADVANCE (https://new.nsf.gov/funding/ opportunities/advance-organizational-change-gender-equity-stem) initiative has supported projects that explicitly focus on enhancing equity and inclusion of females and faculty of color in STEM faculty. The lessons from these efforts have often been generalized to the broader institution and adapted by other institutions enhancing the representation of the target groups in all disciplinary and interdisciplinary units across the organization. Further, ADVANCE initiatives that focus on “Institutional Transformations” have been shown to benefit those who are not specific priorities of the work (e.g., white males) but whose improved work satisfaction and circumstances may, recursively, not only benefit them but help to create a more generally positive setting for all (Laursen & Austin, 2020). That is, the interventions developed to enhance the recruitment, retention, and advancement of females and faculty from under-represented groups have resulted in a more positive work climate, level of satisfaction, and outcomes for all of those in the institution. 

In recent years ADVANCE (NSF, 2020) has underscored the importance of emphasizing the impacts of and the development of interventions for those who experience multiple sources of bias, stress, and discrimination relating to “intersectionality.”  Beyond this, the focus moves beyond concerns with just one specific characteristic condition that may result in under-representation or disadvantage to consider the interactive and cumulative impacts of being members of groups that may have several characteristics that are often targets of bias and discrimination (e.g., being both female and African-American). Specifically, “intersectionality” is defined as resulting from social categorizations, such as race, class, and gender, as they apply to a given individual or group that create overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

Although this paper is primarily focused on issues of primary concern to research administrators, it also draws from the broader work of ADVANCE and the contributions of those in the institutions that have sought and received such funding and systematic studies of the overall initiative (e.g., Laursen & Austin, 2020; Stewart & Valian, 2018). It also considers the many contributions of related professional groups (The Association of Women in Science [AWIS]), as well as the work of JRA authors and those who have contributed to broader literature in other outlets.

That literature has identified a number of research-based strategies and areas to target for effectively enhancing the levels of representation of STEM women faculty and other groups of faculty who are also often marginalized in universities, medical centers, and other research institutions as a function of race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, disability, citizenship, or Indigenous status. Unfortunately for the work of research administrators, that literature has contained relatively little discussion or focus on the ways research administrators, at all levels and units, whether central administration or at department or college, institute, and center levels, can help institutions to be effective in implementing these strategies and addressing the underlying concerns. The next part of this paper will provide an overview of some of the strategies and target areas identified in the literature and provide a discussion of ways research administrators can contribute to addressing them, as well as highlight some of the unique aspects of how the conduct of sponsored work in institutions may contribute to a lack of DEI and how we can address those issues. The discussion here is not meant to be comprehensive. It is offered in the hopes that the issues discussed, combined with the other manuscripts in this Special Issue, will provide a basis and set of resources that encourages and enables our colleagues within SRAI and research administrators more broadly, to submit studies to JRA and other outlets regarding their work and evolving processes in their institutions that target the enhancement of DEI.  It is also hoped that these future submissions to JRA will address how such efforts may enhance institutional conditions for all engaged in research and other creative activities.

In their volume on their study of institutions that have received funding to develop and implement ADVANCE programs, along with a series of blog posts and articles, Austin and Laursen (2021) present us with twelve strategies (shown in Table 1) they have found that universities and other research institutions can use to create more diverse, inclusive communities.  They emphasize that these are not “one size [strategies set] fits all settings” but are most effective when tailored to the institution's particular conditions and sources of inequities. 

Table 1. Research-Based and Data-Informed Strategies to Enhance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Each of the 12 strategies and accompanying focus points would require more than several chapters to give them their due. For our purposes, however, we will focus on but a few. The goal is not to reiterate what prior authors have said regarding these strategies in detail. Instead, the goal is to highlight a few ways the understanding and experiences of research administrators may build on the broad general strategies identified previously to identify additional issues and strategies to address them that increase the overall effectiveness of the work.

Austin and Laursen (2021b) argue that what they call “structures” and “cultures” may contain elements that derive from and reflect implicit biases that serve as barriers to DEI efforts within institutions. Structures are defined as procedures, policies, norms, and related elements that shape workflow and decisions. They define cultures as norms, values, and other conventions regarding what is valued and how interactions are judged (Austin & Laursen, 2021b).  Potential strategies they identify as helpful in reducing biased processes that may exist or be reflected in these structures and cultural elements are included in Table 1. They target some significant decision-making milestones in a faculty member’s career. Inclusive hiring processes, equitable processes in tenure and promotion, and ensuring that implicit bias is not present, in so far as possible, in evaluating the work and research focus of the faculty member across their time in the institution are all critical strategies.  

It is also the case that even if all the implicit and other forms of bias and discrimination are scrubbed out of the policies and procedures present in an institution, it may not be sufficient to ensure a level playing field for all. The prior experiences and backgrounds of some individuals, particularly those from groups that have been subject to discrimination of all types, victims of stereotypes, or deprived of critical educational and professional socialization experiences, among other sources of professional or personal disadvantage, may still make the process of wending their way through the professional hurdles that confront them more challenging than for those from more advantaged groups and backgrounds.

The following section presents but one set of ways that the unique understandings of those in research administration can extend the effectiveness of DEI efforts beyond the major transformations they may provide for to refine and enhance the delivery and implementation of the institutional changes.

The Need for Proactive Outreach and Intervention from the Office of Research in Navigating the Maze of Policies and Procedures Surrounding Conducting Scholarship of all Types

Experienced research administrators know dozens of policies and procedures surrounding efforts by investigators to seek and conduct sponsored scholarly investigations and creative endeavors. Indeed, there are major federal/research institution partnerships, such as the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), whose core focus is on addressing the significant administrative burden faced by funded investigators as they attempt to deal with the requirements they have to address as they conduct federally sponsored work. The FDP also conducts pilots of possible new federal requirements to be implemented (e.g., data retention and sharing processes) and monitors their impact on investigators and institutions before they reach the level of widespread adoption. All of this is done in recognition of how arduous it is for investigators to work through the requirements they face without failing to address them all. Research administrators can find helpful resources for investigators and their work on the FDP (2023) website, as well as opportunities for input and support. 

Further increasing the administrative burden relating to just determining what is required, never mind addressing all the requirements, is that each funding source may have unique variations on what is required across the conduct of the work. These variations may range from the criteria for eligibility to apply for funding, to definitions of financial conflicts of interest, to reporting and data retention.  Even experienced researchers who have had multiple large, well-funded projects may be surprised by the new requirements they encounter if they shift their area of focus or the agency from which they are seeking funding. Similarly, given the constantly changing requirements of funding agencies, it is also the case that all researchers, whatever their experience level, may need to be made aware of changes in recent policy shifts. Of course, for all of this, the Office of Research (OoR) is a critical partner for investigators in distilling what is required of them.

For all new investigators, particularly those who may have come from institutions that had fewer resources, were less research-intensive, or those that had mentoring that did not provide extensive training in what is required to conduct research as a lead investigator, they may not “know what they do not [need to] know” or even the right questions. Indeed, as most research administrators know all too well, it is not generally the norm that new faculty have received extensive orientation to administrative policies and procedures that apply to funded work beyond those they may have encountered in their own research and lab settings. This lack of awareness and knowledge may be particularly acute when the new investigators are trained in institutions that are less research-intensive and for those who have trained in countries other than the one in which they will be conducting their funded work.

Why a Special Focus on DEI

The obvious question is, why focus on DEI faculty rather than all faculty, given the pervasiveness of these issues? Clearly, the issues discussed in this paper may apply to faculty, staff, and students from all backgrounds. Outreach and training in administrative research requirements and systematically keeping all faculty informed about funding opportunities and how to seek such funding successfully are good ideas. The constant evolution of those requirements and opportunities again makes these efforts ones that should involve all faculty through an array of ongoing efforts. All new faculty, regardless of their backgrounds and sociodemographic characteristics, are also confronted with learning the new policies, processes, ways things are done, and the culture in the institution they are entering. Other factors may also constrain access to key information for all faculty, no matter whether senior, male, or from a majority group. Family responsibilities, personal characteristics, illness, and such life changes as starting a new role, being promoted, or many other factors can all cause one not to be fully versed in current opportunities, issues, policies, and processes. Importantly, it is also the case, however, that research has consistently shown that females and those from under-represented groups may be more hesitant to, and far less likely, to seek out information and mentoring from senior faculty, research administrators, and other critical sources of information, than are males from majority backgrounds (Nobles, 2023).

The sources of such hesitancy are also well documented. Faculty who are female, non-majority, persons with disabilities, from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those who were not native-born are more likely to have experienced negative interactions with authority figures within the institutions, to have been victims of conscious or unconscious bias, and to have experienced microaggressions in the workplace as well as in the community (c.f. Association for Psychological Science, 2021).  Additionally, females and persons of color are often penalized and viewed negatively for levels of assertiveness (in seeking information or addressing concerns) when those same behaviors are viewed more positively when exhibited by white males) (Colwell et al., 2020).

ADVANCE initiatives have demonstrated a wide range of research-based and other potentially effective avenues for outreach to investigators to provide important information about institutional and sponsor agency policies and procedures (Laursen & Austin, 2020). One set of examples involves members of the research office providing direct training, and professional development opportunities open to all investigators, thereby allowing those who may need such assistance but who may be reluctant to ask for it not to make a direct request for it. Illustratively, in a previous position, this author was part of a team involving the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) and other key campus partners that held an annual weekend-long retreat or “research camp” directed toward all new faculty and others who wanted to participate to familiarize them with critical policies and procedures as well as opportunities for informational and financial support that was available through the OVCR and partner units. Such retreats can be sources of information and build a sense of belonging and partnership with the research office.

Another example involves research administrators ensuring that potential sources of information about research policies and processes that faculty are more likely to encounter daily are well informed about research policies, procedures, and recent modifications that may have occurred. Department chairs, center directors, and administrative staff in these and other units can be essential links in the outreach efforts of an OoR, expanding both their research and ability to respond effectively. So, for example, the OoR needs to make systematic efforts to partner with these important sources of instrumental support for faculty and other investigators to share the latest information on funding opportunities, policies, and processes so that they are fully up-to-date on these and related issues and on whom to contact in the OoR to get further assistance.  Importantly, these more proximal sources of support may help ensure that faculty do not have to navigate their own way to the appropriate part of the OoR, which may be particularly difficult in large institutions or ones with unfamiliar structures. Illustratively, they also provide the opportunity for those more proximal leaders and mentors, who have frequent contact with the faculty members, to proactively identify and provide needed input even before the faculty member may themselves realize they need it, helping to avoid everything from compliance issues to late reporting or missing opportunities for funding applications. 

Providing Access, Information, and Support for Seeking Available Funding, both Internal and External, At Critical Junctures

Whether new to an institution, junior, or at other critical points in their careers, faculty success will often depend on access to financial and other vital resources. These may take the form of start-up packages that include seed funds, space, support for pre-and post-doctoral students or staff, equipment, and much more. Internal grants for travel, pilot/seed funding, publication costs, support for course reductions and buy-outs, bridge funding between sponsored projects, or the receipt of new awards for funding may all be essential for the success of the investigator and the team. Unfortunately, new faculty are often asked to provide their start-up support requests when they are least familiar with what the institution may provide. Under-represented faculty may also be arriving from countries other than the one their new home institution is in, leading them to be unfamiliar with the regularities of the research institutions in their new national context. They may also be coming from smaller minority-serving institutions that, for example, in the case of HBCUs, have, until relatively recent efforts by some states and foundations that have made some progress in closing gaps, had fewer resources available for research support.  

What should be clear about the above is that a lack of awareness of what resources may be available in their new institution may interact with gender or other social category factors, prior personal and professional experiences of bias in their prior institutions, and the availability of resources for research activity there (Laursen & Austin, 2020; Stewart & Valian, 2018). These factors may make faculty, staff members, or students from under-represented groups hesitant to ask for some or all the resources they need to conduct their work successfully. The additional issues that surround transitions into new settings, roles, and institutions, such as managing first impressions and being unaware of institutional norms, compound the concerns that, for example, a female faculty member or a faculty member from a minority background has about having been assertive in asking for resources they may need to conduct their work. Again, for example, the OoR must act proactively to ensure equal awareness of and access to the full range of resources that faculty members new to the institution may have available. These interventions may include, but not be limited to, identifying senior faculty members in the hiring units, particularly those who have been at the institution for an extended time, who are willing to meet with incoming and other relatively junior or less previously research-active faculty to provide mentoring and advocacy regarding opportunities and options. The OoR can make these efforts even more effective may providing specialized training for these mentor faculty. Other alternatives may include training for search committees on how to raise resource/start-up needs issues and the range of resources available for start-up packages. Training should also focus on engaging in these discussions with sensitivity to reducing concerns about requests potentially influencing receiving an offer or being viewed positively if the candidate joins the faculty at the institution.

Even after faculty from under-represented groups and female faculty have been in an institution for several years or more, the interactions and climate they experience in the institution may raise concerns about assertively seeking additional resources and support for their work. Administrators, whether in the OoR, other units, and other faculty, may not be aware of how explicit or implicit biases that they may not be aware of holding negatively influence the types of climate and interactions that non-majority and female faculty are experiencing consistently.  Exacerbating these issues are other forms of bias that administrators may not recognize as expressions of such attitudes but that place additional constraints on the time and resources female and faculty, staff, and students from under-represented groups have available that may add to the hesitance from those in these groups to seek resources to develop intensive, time-consuming scholarly inquiry, ultimately leading to a lack of advancement and non-retention.  

In addressing these issues, adopting a proactive stance is again key. Such outreach can take multiple forms. Research leaders may offer training to administrators on ensuring the equitable distribution of various workload elements, particularly those that are time-consuming but typically less valued in research institutions (e.g., service work such as advising and serving on committees that are typically not seen as leadership or valued as highly as other work in evaluating faculty for performance and promotion, etc.). They may also work with units and faculty review committees to provide a heavier emphasis and greater value on the kinds of service work that disproportionately tends to be carried out by female and other under-represented faculty (Babcock et al., 2021).

Summary and Next Steps

One of the points that Austin and Laursen (2021, 2022), repeatedly make is that for organizational change to be effective, it needs to be systematic and comprehensive. Given the central role of OoRs and the research staff across the institutions and units in which they work, not including the unique perspectives of research administrators at all levels in the design and implementation of efforts to enhance the representation, experiences, and success of women and faculty of color in our institutions, as well as that of all faculty, would result in efforts that are neither systemic nor comprehensive. In the discussion in this paper, the importance of a focus on DEI within OoRs was highlighted. It also sought to present a few examples of how the perspectives that administrators grounded in the work of the OoR can help surface issues that might otherwise be overlooked and require attention by those leading DEI efforts. 

Given the many contributions described in prior submissions to JRA by research administrators in helping to clarify and enhance the conduct of research and creative activity in our institutions, we hope, as noted previously, they will increase the frequency with which they share with us lessons regarding what they have contributed to DEI enhancement in their institutions as well as seek additional representation in those efforts.

References

ARC Network: A STEM Equity Brain Trust. (2023). About us. https://www.equityinstem.org/about

Association for Psychological Science. (2021, September 13). Current understandings of microaggressions: Impacts on individuals and society. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 16(5), Special Issue.

Association of Women in Science. (2023). Advancing gender equity. https://awis.org/

Austin, A. E., & Laursen, S. (2021a, April 15). Addressing STEM gender equity through institutional systemic change. HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/blog/ postDisplay.cfm?Blog%20=32&post=2666&Title=Addressing%20STEM%20Gender%20Equity%20through%20Institutional%20Systemic%20Change

Austin, A. E., & Laursen, S. (2021b, June 22). Creating equity in the workplace. HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/blog/postDisplay.cfm?post=2751&blog=32&Title=Creating%20Equity%20in%20the%20Workplace

Austin, A. E., & Laursen, S. (2021c, August 10). Six more research-based strategies to advance equity. HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/blog/postDisplay.cfm?post= 2798&blog=32&Title=Six%20More%20Research-Based%20Strategies% 20to%20Advance%20Equity

Austin, A. E., & Laursen, S. (2022, January 19). Creating and sustaining change with a systemic institutional approach. HigherEdJob
 https://www.higheredjobs.com/blog/post Display.cfm?post=2945&blog=32&Title=Creating%20and%20Sustaining%20Change%20with%20a%20Systemic%20Institutional%20Approach

Babcock, L., Peyser, B., Versterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2022, October 5). Female faculty: Beware the non-promotable task. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/female-faculty-beware-the-non-promotable-task

Campbell, T., & Bourbonnais, V. (2023). From compliance to inclusion: Implementing an equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan for a federal funding program in Canada. Journal of Research Administration, LIV(4).

Colwell, R. R., Bear, A., & Helman, A. (Eds.). (2020). Promising practices for addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine: Opening doors. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585

Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009 (January 25, 2021).

Federal Demonstration Partnership. (2023). Federal Demonstration Partnership: Redefining the government & university research partnership. https://thefdp.org/default/

Laursen, S., & Austin, A. E. (2020). Building gender equity in the academy: Institutional strategies for change. John Hopkins University Press.

National Institute of Health (2020)  Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.  https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-20-222.html

National Endowment for the Arts. (2022, February). Strategic plan FY2022-2026. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-2026-Strategic-Plan-Feb2022.pdf 

National Science Foundation. (2020, March 6). ADVANCE: Organizational change for gender equity in STEM academic professions (ADVANCE). Program Solicitation 20-554. https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/ advance-organizational-change-gender-equity-stem

National Science Foundation. (2023). FY 2023 budget request to Congress. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/index.jsp

Nobles, R. E. (2023). The role of Research Administrators in supporting diverse faculty members. Journal of Research Administration, LIV(4). In Press.

NSF’s Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES National Network. (2023). Who we are. https://www.includesnetwork.org/about-us/who-we-are

Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity excellence. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9766.001.0001

The White House. (2021, January 20). Executive order on enhancing diversity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/