Calling the current scientific reward system problematic and narrow, 24 female scientists from across the globe have proposed a new framework that can be implemented system-wide to increase equality and innovation based on a multidimensional mentorship model.
Writing in PLOS Biology, the scientists first dismantle the “publish or perish” citation model championed by universities and journals as not only sexist and racist, but also removed from the real-world of scientific research.
“Ignoring the breadth of areas where scientists have strong impacts creates an unduly narrow view of the many avenues through which scientists can contribute to intellectual advances, applied science, and equitable communication and translation of science to the public,” the authors write. “This narrow view excludes the real-world impacts within the scientific system. Even if citation metrics were not biased, using citations as a proxy for success supports the false paradigm that scientists lack impact if they do not (or cannot) publish and/or have chosen ‘alternative’ career paths.”
Therefore, the all-female team suggests broadening the definitions of success by valuing the impact of healthy, bidirectional mentorship that can promote justice, equity, diversity and inclusion in STEM.
To better understand this multidimensional mentorship and their proposed “publish and flourish” model, Editor-in-Chief Michelle Taylor recently spoke with co-first author Sarah W. Davies, an assistant professor of biology at Boston University.
MT: The diversity gap in STEM has been well-established and acknowledged. And yet, past efforts to improve diversity have been unsuccessful. Why do you think that is?
SD: I think a lot of past and ongoing efforts have been focused on recruitment of diverse candidates, however, less emphasis has been placed on retention of these scientists and providing them with a supportive community where people from all backgrounds feel they belong and can thrive.
MT: Why do you and your co-authors feel a broader lens of mentorship—not quantified by success and productivity—is more beneficial?
SD: We cannot simply quantify mentorship by publication and citation rates because we know that these metrics are biased and there is so much more to scientific success than just publications, including being a strong mentor, being the bridge between science and policy, and communication with the public. Placing more value on mentorship will push leaders to invest in these skills, which have been shown to be essential in determining career outcomes- especially amongst marginalized groups.
MT: Why are mentoring networks a more successful approach than top-down relationships?
SD: It is very unlikely that a single mentor can provide effective mentorship across all mentee needs. This is especially true for marginalized groups who may be better served by finding additional academic or personal mentorship from individuals that have similar personal experiences, or share the same identity as the mentee. If people in positions of power support these networks, they will be investing in higher retention of these individuals over the long-term.
Figure 1: Two models for the disciplines of STEMM. The study authors argue the latter approach can lead to increased innovation that will transform STEMM culture where processes, which support the 2 models, and outcomes of each, are side highlighted within the oval shapes. Credit: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282.g002
MT: What about systemic racism? How can these types of relationships help institutions promote justice and diversity?
SD: Valuing mentorship in this manner would essentially create a mindset of retention instead of just recruitment. Researchers from marginalized backgrounds are not leaving STEMM because they are not talented and qualified, they are leaving the system because they are not supported. Shifting priorities to training and providing people with essential tools to foster great mentorship would lead to these people overcoming barriers and staying in the system and eventually becoming strong mentors themselves.
MT: Shifting an entire value system like this is no easy task. What are the first steps leadership can take to implement a multidimensional mentorship that creates an inclusive and innovative community?
SD: These are the first few ideas I think would be fairly straightforward to implement:
- Establish internal awards for mentor excellence
- Formally assess mentorship during tenure and promotion
- Provide training: inclusive pedagogical approaches, bystander intervention training, and anti-bullying and antiracist mentoring and teaching practices. This training could be required for career advancement or as a prerequisite for recruiting mentees.
- Normalize these discussions in all aspects of science
- During hiring, candidates should be assessed across multiple axes of impact
As Davies and her fellow female scientists conclude in their paper, “The challenges associated with changing a deeply embedded institutional history, culture and structure toward a different inclusive value system will require institutions to champion a ‘new norm’ to bring change at a global scale. Such a shift must be embraced by all and led by those currently in positions of power and privilege. This shift requires not only specific proactive actions and reforms to institutionalize change but also mechanisms to monitor implementation and provide feedback optimizing an adaptive and dynamic structure.”
Photos: (TOP) Sarah W. Davies in her marine population genomics lab at Boston University. Credit: Cydney Scott for Boston University Photography. (MIDDLE) Two models for the disciplines of STEMM. The study authors argue the latter approach can lead to increased innovation that will transform STEMM culture where processes, which support the 2 models, and outcomes of each, are side highlighted within the oval shapes. Credit: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282.g002