Scientific meetings form the connective tissue of the global scientific enterprise. Challenging meeting agendas invigorate thinking and promote the exchange of ideas. Social events and serendipitous encounters foster new collaborations and opportunities to reconnect with colleagues outside home institutions. Side meetings provide time and space to collaborate on new projects, create scientific programs and sustain collaborations.

Scientific meetings also serve as a valuable gateway to career development. Many people rely on scientific meetings to grow the knowledge and networks needed for a successful career in science. This is especially true for academics, as scientific meetings are often where researchers and senior faculty scout graduate students to hire as postdocs, postdocs are vetted for future teaching and research positions, and junior faculty can garner recognition for their scientific contributions.

Whether in-person, virtual, or hybrid, scientific meetings are essential for building relationships and trust, and bridging different perspectives on challenging problems. Because participation in scientific meetings is so essential for a successful career in science, it’s imperative that they be designed as equitable, inclusive, accessible, and just spaces. Only by creating such conditions can we support diversity in career advancement and, in turn, produce more robust scientific exchange and science-informed solutions.

Science institutions and organizations have a moral responsibility to create inclusive and equitable spaces that allow everyone in the STEM community to be productive, to contribute, and to be valued. Evidence reinforces an intuition held by many: that science and innovation are optimized by the representation of diverse perspectives and approaches. Simply put, inclusive, participatory science is better science (Nielsen et al., 2017, Loder 1999, Campbell et al., 2013, Freeman & Huang 2014). However, not all scientists experience scientific meetings as inclusive and positive spaces. Some people are left out (intentionally or otherwise). Some feel intimidated and isolated in meetings when they do not see people who look like them or share a common background. A persistent representation gap remains in awards, keynote talks at meetings, and leadership roles (for example, in oceanography, Kappel & Thompson 2014). Some meeting participants encounter barriers, such as inaccessible venues and presentation formats and lack of childcare support, lactation rooms, or safe bathroom spaces, that keep them from fully participating. Some are even targets of harassment and assault at meetings (National Science Board 2015).

It is common to feel overwhelmed amidst the deluge of information and social interactions at scientific meetings, big or small. But the structure and culture of scientific meetings can exclude some members of our scientific communities, especially those from marginalized identities.

Exclusionary meetings can result in alienation of those from marginalized identities. Instead of providing forums of belonging, where diverse ideas can flourish because individuals are supported, exclusionary meetings fail to foster ideas and innovation from people who encounter structural barriers to participation. Exclusionary conditions, along with exclusionary institutional practices and norms, too often result in the departure of these individuals from scientific professions.

PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE

This Guide presents concrete recommendations for how to create inclusive and equitable spaces at scientific meetings, from the ground up. Explicitly, it aims to build structure for inclusion of people from communities often marginalized in the sciences, including those who identify as Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC); LGBTQ+ people, women; D/deaf and Hard of Hearing people, blind and low-vision people, and physically, mentally, and cognitively disabled and neurodivergent people; first-generation people; linguistically diverse people; and people early in their career. We recognize that there are other communities that are also marginalized in the scientific community, and we recognize the ways in which these identities intersect. This Guide is intentionally not an exhaustive resource, and we’ve linked to related resources throughout instead of being duplicative.

Guidance is provided for different meeting modalities, including in-person, virtual, and hybrid formats, as well as for international contexts. This document includes three sections:

1.  Planning the meeting,

2. During the meeting, and

3. Assessing the meeting.

The Guide is meant to be applicable to a broad array of meeting types—but we recognize that not every recommendation will apply to every kind of meeting. Within each section we have marked recommendations that are especially applicable in different modalities:

• In-person

• Hybrid

• Virtual

We recognize this Guide covers many topics and raises recommendations that may not feel relatable to your meeting context or possible to implement. Nonetheless, all these recommendations were written with intentionality and are important to consider. For scientific meetings to become more inclusive, participants at every level—planners, meeting funders, facilitators, presenters, and attendees—must challenge the idea that these recommendations are unlikely to be needed or are not needed by enough people to warrant implementation. We also understand that carrying out these recommendations is a demanding process and may not be possible to do all at once. Even if you are not able to put them all into effect due to meeting format, timing, budget constraints, staffing requirements, or other limitations:

WE ENCOURAGE AND CHALLENGE YOU TO IMPLEMENT AS MANY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AS POSSIBLE AND TO BUILD THE CAPACITY OF YOUR TEAM TO IMPLEMENT MORE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FUTURE.

WHO IS THIS GUIDE FOR?

This Guide is primarily targeted at people in planning or leadership positions for scientific meetings (co-chairs, steering committees, subcommittees, organizers, etc). While there are sometimes power imbalances within planning groups and differences in decision-making structures, we aspire to provide recommendations that can be implemented across planning roles. We also include insights for other key meeting stakeholders, including professional societies, those who fund events, and participants.

We will update these recommendations over time to incorporate feedback from meeting organizers who focus on equity and inclusion and share their successes and failures. Sharing our experiences will allow us to iterate on these guidelines as we identify areas for improvement. Please reach out to partnerships@500womenscientists.org with any comments or questions.

Before diving into specifics, we want to address considerations that are relevant before, during, and after a meeting. Meeting organizers (and ideally participants) should clearly understand the following principles to foster awareness and facilitate more equitable participation. Consider distributing this Guide and associated resources to all facilitators and attendees, including a Code of Conduct that expresses expectations and values for the event.

Implicit biases.

Implicit biases affect our perceptions and understanding of the world. Since these biases are outside of our conscious control, becoming aware of them and how they can impact our decision-making is key to reducing their impacts. Many STEM institutions and norms were established by and for people from privileged identities, so the prevalence of implicit biases in STEM tends to marginalize those from communities historically (and still) excluded from the sciences (Malcom & Feder 2016).

For example, due to affinity bias—the tendency to prefer people like ourselves—people are more likely to accept and act on information communicated by someone from a similar background (Drummond & Fischoff 2017). Affinity bias influences many leadership decisions in STEM organizations, in turn perpetuating existing power structures and limiting access and opportunity for marginalized groups.

In general, the less diverse or inclusive a field is, the heavier the reliance on stereotypes and implicit biases toward marginalized groups will be, the greater the harassment those groups will face, and the more likely they will be to leave STEM fields (Dutt 2018). This has important implications for how scientific knowledge is shared and used, limiting science’s potential for impact.

Conference organizers need to educate themselves on bias and develop a plan to minimize its impacts. Failure to acknowledge implicit biases will result in a meeting environment where marginalized groups will

continue to be excluded and privileged groups will continue to dominate. When promoting awareness about bias, conference organizers should keep in mind that shaming or blaming people is not productive. Rather, discussions should be structured in ways that allow self- reflection in as safe a space as possible.

Whoever talks has the power.

Equity is about access and power; whoever has the floor has the power. This plays out in scientific conferences on both the macro and micro scales. Who benefits from the meeting? What conference topics are being elevated? Within a conference, listening is as important as speaking, and conference organizers should ensure facilitation that elevates equitable participation. For example, facilitators may institute appropriate pauses and wait for others to process before sharing, recognizing that slow responses may be a result of linguistic or cultural differences. Provide targeted guidance to session organizers to create an environment that welcomes and supports all voices in dialogue and provides opportunities to continue discussions.

PARTICIPATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WHO IS IN THE SPACE, BUT ALSO ABOUT HOW THEY’RE DOING IN THE SPACE.

Historically, the focus on “diversity” has meant increasing representation of individuals from different identities in science, in workplaces, at meetings, and other professional environments. Diversity is important, but it emphasizes counting “types” rather than ensuring inclusion, providing access, and valuing contributions across power hierarchies. Creating a system that works for people with many different, intersecting identities is a prerequisite for making science inclusive—and it is a prerequisite for scientific progress. This can make the difference between whether a meeting creates a culture of belonging for all, as opposed to assimilating diverse perspectives into the historical culture of meetings.

DESIGNING FOR UNIVERSAL ACCESS BENEFITS EVERYONE.

Universal design is the notion that everyone benefits when you make a meeting and its accompanying materials, like websites, accessible to people who face the biggest challenges (Office of Disability Employment Policy 2019). The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an extensive guide to making your meeting accessible (Serrato Marks 2018). It includes many great recommendations, such as providing chairs for all speakers and always using a microphone. Another resource to consult is Universal Design for Learning (CAST 2019).

MAKE YOUR DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, JUSTICE, ACCESSIBILITY (DEIJA) WORK TRANSPARENT.

Be public about your commitment and goals to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility (DEIJA) in scientific meetings, and include information about accountability structures. Write about your efforts as you go, naming progress and challenges alike. Share data and assessments of your goals within your organization and beyond. By making the journey transparent, you acknowledge that this is always a work in progress, which provides support for others to enter this work regardless of expertise or comfort level (see examples in Bilimoria & Liang 2012). Transparency also creates opportunities for organizational leadership to elicit constructive feedback from members, partners, and those who fund events on where additional support or alternate approaches are warranted to meet goals.

DEMONSTRATING PROGRESS REQUIRES DATA.

Establishing baseline data now and monitoring future progress is critical. Start by collecting and sharing data on your meeting now, at the planning stages, during, and after the meeting, and continue to collect and share it in the future. Sharing data creates accountability for yourself as well as for other groups and events around you.

Please note: it is important to collect, store, and share data responsibly. You may need to work with a university institutional review board (IRB) to determine what information you can collect and share. Collect and store people’s personal information securely and appropriately, be sensitive when asking people for information about their identities, and don’t overshare personal information. Unless strictly necessary to do otherwise, maintain demographic and other information related to diversity as de-identified datasets to limit the risk of exposing confidential or sensitive data. When maintaining personally identifying information, create a policy to describe acceptable storage locations, permissions, sharing, and use (e.g., University of Michigan’s PII).

SET AND ENFORCE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND STRUCTURES OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

Accountability for inappropriate behavior, especially from people in positions of power, is essential to create a safe space for people who are not in positions of power. These can be communicated via a code of conduct, which is a set of guidelines that establishes clear expectations for appropriate and inclusive behavior during the meeting. A rigorous code of conduct identifies inappropriate behaviors, their consequences, sanctions, and enforcement mechanisms. Organizers should create a clear process for reporting inappropriate behavior and be clear who the point of contact is for reporting; put it in the Code of Conduct and make participants aware of it. Clear Codes of Conduct, even for small meetings, should be (1) developed, if they don’t already exist, (2) visible, and (3) widely shared. Refer to the Planning the Meeting section for guidance on creating a Code of Conduct.

SHARE DEIJA WORK EQUITABLY.

Making science diverse, equitable, inclusive, and just takes work. Historically this work has been done mostly by the very people who lack privilege in the system—and without compensation (Jimenez et. al 2019). Meeting organizers and planners typically volunteer subject-specific expertise and leadership. However, when people from marginalized groups do DEIJA-related work, they are also performing emotional labor. Meeting organizers and leaders should seriously consider whether the work at hand is appropriate for a volunteer or a paid consultant/subject matter expert, and compensate individuals appropriately.

Be mindful and reflect on how this work is distributed, and aim to ensure that inclusivity efforts are a collective responsibility among privileged and marginalized groups. Finally, sometimes meetings lead to scientific work—projects, publications, and white papers. Doing the work can be an opportunity and/or a burden. Here are some questions to ask:

1. Who is doing this work?

2. Why are they the ones doing it?

3. How does that work impact the scientific reputation of the worker?

4. Should they be the ones doing it?

5. What are ways to support doing this work, and what resources have we not yet identified

   to help with it?

6. If you see a problem with workload distribution, do something (when possible). If

   someone has a busy period coming up, they should let others know so someone else can help out. Committee chairs/leads should create an atmosphere where committee members feel comfortable to speak up about these things. All the work for an event should never fall to one person.

SEEK FUNDING THAT REFLECTS YOUR VALUES AROUND EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

Making science more equitable and inclusive takes funding as well as work. Build appropriate levels of support for DEIJA goals into meeting budgets, including compensation for individuals who too often have to volunteer to achieve those goals. Individuals from marginalized communities, in particular, should be compensated at or above market rate in recognition of their additional emotional labor.

Planning the Meeting

Planning an inclusive scientific meeting requires methodologically integrating diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility (DEIJA) at every stage. This includes intentional goal setting, recruiting diverse planning team members as well as panelists, finding accessible meeting locations, establishing schedules that maximize engagement while centering the unique needs of participants, developing codes of conduct, and offering a variety of ways for networking and broadening participation. Planning should begin early (6 months - 1 year in advance of the event) to ensure that consideration of diversity, inclusion, and accessibility are meaningfully woven throughout the meeting design and format. It is critical to determine from the outset the meeting purpose, and examine who is likely to benefit from the meeting, who is likely to be left out, and why.

This section includes a summary of strategies that can make scientific meetings inclusive of and accessible to a broad diversity of participants, especially those from marginalized communities. We recognize that meeting planners may not be able to enact all of these recommendations in every meeting; however, we strongly recommend taking as many into account as possible from the start.

SET GOALS FOR EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

Meeting organizers should prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility goals from the outset, with specific goals considered in each part of the planning process (e.g., choosing a venue or platform, inviting speakers, publicizing the meeting). For detailed guidance on goal-setting and evaluation, refer to the Assessment section.

1. Familiarize yourself with relevant research concordats and ethics policies

2. Create guidelines to monitor progress toward DEIJA goals.

SELECT A DIVERSE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE OF CAREER STAGE, RACE, GENDER, AND OTHER AXES OF IDENTITY.

Breakthroughs and innovation rely on broadening the lens through which scientific questions are examined (McLeod et al., 1996). A diverse organizing committee can help ensure a representative roster of participants and speakers. For example, women invite more women to speak (Sardelis and Drew 2016, Ford et al., 2018), resulting in the proportion of women speakers equivalent to that of the authors of submitted abstracts. A more diverse organizing committee and speaker line-up also helps foster a sense of belonging among participants from marginalized groups, who can see themselves represented in the makeup of the meeting leadership and program (Barrows et al., 2021). Publicly available databases (such as gage, Geoscientists of color, Diverse speakers in STEMM, Water Researchers of Color, Global South Climate Database) can help co-organizers identify diverse participants and speakers.

1. Recruit meeting co-organizers that represent diverse communities and marginalized groups.

2. Cultivate safe spaces for discussing dimensions of DEIJA relating to the planning process.

3. Establish clear mechanisms for communication and structures for decision making.

4. Celebrate and provide credit and visibility to meeting organizers.

SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING THAT REFLECTS YOUR COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

Organizing an inclusive scientific meeting requires funding to support participant attendance, speaker compensation, and open access meeting outputs. Funding can be secured from multiple sources to adequately suport initiatives.

1. Seek funding to support organizer and participant costs.

2. Budget for meeting facilitation.

3. Seek event funders that reflect your values around diversity, equity, and inclusion.

4. Build in funding to support post-meeting output development.

CHOOSE A MEETING MODALITY, LOCATION, VENUE, AND TIMING THAT PRIORITIZES BELONGING AND ACCESS FOR DIVERSE ATTENDEES.

Meeting modality (in-person vs. virtual vs. hybrid) has become a particularly salient dimension of meeting planning since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has forced meeting organizers to thoroughly interrogate why, when, and how we meet to advance scientific goals. Co-organizers must contend with overcoming DEIJA barriers within each meeting modality.

1. Selecting a location for in-person meetings

2. Selecting a venue for in-person meetings

3. Selecting a platform for virtual meetings

4. Schedule the meeting with respect for participants’ calendars and time zones

CREATE A HUMAN-CENTERED MEETING AGENDA.

Meeting agendas that are dominated by talks and presentations limit which voices are heard and stymie opportunities for inclusive knowledge sharing, co-learning, and relationship-building. Organizers and facilitators can instead develop an agenda that prioritizes inclusive and equitable engagement, exchange of ideas, critical thinking, and discussion.

1. Facilitators can be employed during the meeting design.

2. Agenda Design: Employ differently paced sessions and activities to maintain group energy, innovation, and to achieve meeting goals.

3. Provide opportunities in the agenda for participants to have active roles beyond serving as presenters.

PROMOTION & OUTREACH

As meeting organizers seek to publicize their meeting, a communications/promotion guide can be tailored toward groups traditionally excluded from scientific meetings. Without an intentional plan, organizers are more likely to reach only the usual suspects.

1. Leave ample time for invited speakers and participants to confirm and ask questions.

2. Clearly state the funding support and accessibility measures that are available.

3. Are you using inclusive images and gender-neutral language in promotional materials?

4. Highlight additional opportunities for attendees to participate in professional development events and/or networking opportunities.

PRIORITIZE DIVERSITY IN SELECTING PRESENTERS AND PARTICIPANTS.

During presenter and participant recruitment, the path of least resistance is to rely on existing networks or invite people you already know. However, this can exacerbate known biases within our existing structures (e.g. Ford et al., 2019). Creating an inclusive and more innovative meeting will require looking outside established networks, which takes more deliberation than rounding up the usual suspects.

1. Recruit participants and speakers outside existing networks, especially for invitationonly workshops.

2. Use an open registration/application process to recruit participants, and allow selfnominations in addition to external speaker nominations.

3. Develop clear selection guidelines for participants and speakers.

4. Continually evaluate speaker and participant diversity throughout the organizing process.

5. Randomize speaker order within sessions of the meeting agenda to avoid bias and placing speakers from marginalized groups at the bottom of speaker line-ups.

FOSTER BELONGING EARLY THROUGH PRE-WORKSHOP INTERACTIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS AND SPEAKERS.

Early communications with participants and speakers goes a long way in setting a tone of belonging and inclusivity. Providing ample information and guidance can engender confidence among participants who are new to scientific meetings and create a sense of calm and safety. This also creates the opportunity to get participants excited about building connections and about opportunities to learn and share with colleagues at the meeting. It is also critical for coordinating with attendees on logistics and accessibility.

1. Share with participants and speakers why they have been invited and what their expertise/experience contributes to the lineup/agenda.

2. Provide information early about intended meeting outcomes and/or deliverables.

3. Reiterate availability of stipends and financial support for participants who won’t receive support from their home institutions.

4. Inform all participants how to navigate the meeting space and agenda (regardless of inperson, virtual, or hybrid), and offer practice time for participants ahead of a meeting.

5. Provide presenters with adequate guidance to prepare for success.

6. Ask attendees through registration what resources or supports they need to be able to fully participate (e.g., sign language interpretation, caretaking arrangements, etc.).

7. Provide options for participants to correct spelling of their names (including the placement of diacritical markers, like accents and tildes) and indicate their chosen name.

8. Ask participants to share their pronouns during registration, and use the opportunity to provide information on how and why to use pronouns.

9. Let participants share their preferences for roommates if the meeting organizers are coordinating shared hotel rooms.

ESTABLISH HARASSMENT REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS.

Establishing and sharing an official code of conduct can help create an inclusive meeting by encouraging respectful treatment of all participants and mitigating harms, such as microaggressions, toward individuals with marginalized identities. Codes of conduct protect organizers as well as participants. It is important to remember that harms can occur outside formal meeting hours and venues, so implementing a code of conduct throughout the entire meeting period is strongly recommended.

1. Develop a code of conduct, if not already established.

2. Adopt best practices for enforcement of anti-harassment policies.

3. All participants, guests, and exhibitors should agree to comply with the code of conduct and enforcement mechanisms during meeting registration.

PROACTIVELY IMPLEMENT ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES

Plan conferences that are accessible for all attendees: participants, session presenters, poster presenters, keynote speakers, conference volunteers, conference planners, etc. Assume that some participants will have accessibility needs, even if they have not disclosed this information. Whenever possible, hire an accessibility planner (at or above market rate) to coordinate accessibility planning with all working groups.

1. Provide attendees with equitable access to information shared through presentations and discussions.

2. . Ensure that the meeting location and venue are inclusive, safe, and accessible for all participants.

During the Meeting: Inclusive Facilitation and Creating Space

A meeting that centers inclusion should:

✓  Enable and encourage everyone at the meeting to participate.

✓  Honor the contributions of all participants.

✓  Empower all voices to be heard.

✓  Ensure everyone present has a sense of belonging and can thrive in the space.

✓  Center human experiences and relationship building.

After careful planning, organizers are responsible for implementing a meeting in which attendees feel a sense of belonging and can thrive. While the planning process can lay the groundwork for an inclusive space, there are many actions organizers take during a meeting to realize their goals for equity and inclusion. Organizers must set the desired tone for the event from the outset, stay adaptive to meet attendee needs, and respond to feedback as quickly as possible to ensure a successful, innovative, and safe event.

Facilitation is often paramount to meeting goals for equity and inclusion. Whether in an in- person, hybrid, or virtual space, facilitators can greatly enhance attendees’ experiences by balancing group power dynamics during discussions and adopting a human-centered program design. Facilitators ensure that meetings start, proceed, and end with a purpose and impact. Including facilitators in the planning of a workshop can ensure the event will flow as intended.

Participants themselves are also integral to an inclusive meeting environment. Participants have the power to break down exclusionary practices by socializing beyond their existing networks, creating balanced exchanges in dialogue (learning to “step up and step back” in discussions), being active learners, and adhering to codes of respectful and inclusive conduct.

INTRODUCTORY TALKS OR COMMENTS CAN TEE UP AWARENESS, DISPOSITIONS, AND SKILLS.

Introductory talks from meeting organizers are important for establishing a welcoming and inclusive environment from the outset of the meeting. Introductory talks can emphasize ground rules, the formal Codes of Conduct, mechanisms for reporting violations, and expectations of respectful participation.

1. Inclusive values. Center belonging and inclusion at every stage of a meeting.

2. Code of Conduct. Verbally acknowledge and draw attention to the Code of Conduct.

3. Group Agreements/Ground Rules. In addition to a Code of Conduct, organizers and facilitators can establish group agreements.

4. Facilitation. Introduce the meeting facilitator(s), and describe how facilitation will take place.

5. Meeting Outcomes. Share upfront with participants what the intended outcomes and deliverables of the meeting will be, and how participants will have opportunities to contribute to those.

LAND AND LABOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CAN BE DELIVERED AS A PART OF BROADER EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH AND SUPPORT IMPACTED COMMUNITIES.

Indigenous land acknowledgments serve as a valuable reminder of not only historical contexts of land acquisition, but also the continued ways colonialism affects individuals and institutions. Land acknowledgments should not be performative or passive shows of activism but rather tied to broadened understanding and solutions (Small 2020). For in-person meetings, land acknowledgments can serve as an entrée to educate attendees about the nations attached to the land the meeting is taking place on and about the past and present methods preventing Indigenous people from acting on their sovereignty rights (Daniel 2019).

1. Indigenous land acknowledgments serve as a valuable reminder of not only historical contexts of land acquisition, but also the continued ways colonialism affects individuals and institutions. Land acknowledgments should not be performative or passive shows of activism but rather tied to broadened understanding and solutions (Small 2020).

2. Labor acknowledgments can be given to recognize the impact and importance of how the unpaid, nonconsensual labor of enslaved people contributes to scientific efforts, your resources as an organization, and the resources of the meeting location.

3. From acknowledgment to compensation. Event organizers can include a budget line for a percentage of the cost to rent the event venue and donate it to Indigenous group(s) whose land the event is taking place on, or to groups that support formerly enslaved people(s).

INCLUSIVE AND EQUITABLE FACILITATION OF PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS IS CRITICAL.

Trained facilitators can not only ensure that meetings achieve their desired outcomes, they also make sure that the process used to achieve those outcomes is collaborative and inclusive. A good facilitator designs an interactive meeting process, engages everyone in the room, facilitates meaningful interaction, honors the contributions of all participants, ensures that all meeting participants can do well in the space, and facilitates collaborative learning opportunities and relationship-building, regardless of the meeting format (i.e., in-person, remote, or hybrid). Facilitators can strategically break important content into shorter, bite-size pieces, summarize important points, and provide discussion prompts so that participants can engage and learn more meaningfully (Seeds for Change 2009).

1. Make everyone welcome from the meeting outset.

2. Disperse power in and beyond presentations.

3. Q&A sessions, group discussions, roundtables, consultation events. Facilitators of Q&As and discussions play a critical role in making sure discussions aren’t dominated by a small number of vocal participants (see AAAS Moderator Guidance). Ask: Who talks? In what order? For how long? Train moderators and facilitators to intentionally elicit multiple perspectives from multiple types of meeting participants.

4. Create shared language. Encourage speakers and participants to minimize jargon as much as possible and have a visible board where terms, acronyms, etc. can be added in real time.

5. Asynchronous participation can benefit those with disabilities, with caretaking responsibilities, from incompatible time zones, who are linguistically diverse, who have limited resources, and myriad other personal or professional reasons.

AGENDA PACING IS KEY.

Facilitators need to think about timing and intensity, content, and engagement in a meeting. Although face-to-face meetings can run all day, virtual meetings can be tiring more quickly, so virtual or hybrid meetings need to be shorter.

1. Stay responsive to participant needs.

2. Breaks, breaks, breaks. Build in enough breaks during virtual and in-person meetings. Meeting fatigue is real, especially in virtual meetings.

LEAD ACTIVITIES TO HELP PARTICIPANTS CONNECT.

Meetings are where professional connections are made and working relationships built — everyone should be included in this exchange. Informal times to network are important for idea generation and career advancement, especially for early career participants and scientists from marginalized communities (Xu & Martin 2011).

1. Put thought into introduction activities.

2. Provide group meals or tea times.

3. Plan affordable, accessible, safe group outings or field trips.

4. Provide career development/mentorship opportunities for specific groups.

5. Offer opportunities to learn about diversity, equity, and inclusion as they relate to the meeting topic and stakeholders.

DEVELOP AND SHARE CLEAR GUIDANCE FOR MEETING DELIVERABLES.

Meeting organizers should be candid about meeting outputs, including criteria for authorship, roles, responsibilities, and target audiences (Frassl et al. 2018).

1. Announce meeting output and deliverables at or before the beginning of the workshop, if known.

2. Consider non-traditional meeting outputs.

3. Allow ample time for participants to volunteer contributions to outputs.

4. Employ best practices for responsible and ethical research.

COLLECT CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS.

1. Evaluate meeting goals to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice from the start to the end of the workshop process (see Assessment section).

2. Ensure that feedback is incorporated into planning the next event and taken on board by organizers, even if it is hard to hear

A critical component in ensuring that scientific spaces and meetings are truly inclusive, equitable, and accessible to all is to hold ourselves accountable and assess how well we did at all stages of the meeting (before, during, and after). Proper evaluation and assessment should be incorporated in any event or meeting and does not have to be extensive or costly. It should be conducted in good faith and with the intent to learn and improve practices for future events. Assessments should be culturally appropriate and follow recommended practices and examples provided in this Guide.

Goals 

• Make any assessment and evaluation efforts culturally sensitive and appropriate.

• Assess whether DEIJA goals were met during the meeting.

• Assess ways in which a meeting cultivated a culture of collaboration.

• Identify and share what worked well and where things fell short.

• Make changes during the ongoing meeting and at future events based on assessment results.

• Share results with all interested parties and be transparent about efforts, shortfalls, and lessons learned.

Steps

Before the meeting:

(a) Set measurable DEIJA goals that are specific to your event or meeting such as:

1. Representation of different identities, career stages, or institutional affiliations in

   different sessions

2. Quantity and quality of interactions in sessions (who speaks?)

3. Feelings of safety or belonging at the event

4. Effective reporting structures to address any concerns

(b) Establish pre- and post-survey questions to assess DEIJA goals. Use culturally appropriate assessment methods and actionable questions that will help the organizers improve future events.

1. Understand and control for bias (including confirmation, sampling, and social desirability biases).

2. Use well-designed surveys.

3. How to decrease bias and increase clarity in survey questions (Sufi et al., 2018).

(c) Identify who will conduct the assessment and with what tools. If results are to be published, seek Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.

During the meeting:

(a) Conduct surveys as agreed in the planning stage. Larger events might have pre-meeting and post-meeting surveys as well as short daily surveys (formative evaluation) to help address any ongoing concerns and capture views reactively. Make sure surveys are accessible to everyone, and build in enough time for people to complete them. Don't assume everyone has time in the evenings after a meeting to fill out a survey!

(b)  Consider collecting data on participant engagement (e.g., who asks questions (Davenport et al., 2014), how often do different people speak, how well did session chairs facilitate engagement with all attendees for inclusive participation).

(c)  Respond to issues identified through daily surveys/feedback (formative evaluation) as soon as they are flagged. Addressing issues during the meeting can help protect the positive environment you’ve worked to create and mitigate harm experienced by participants. If there is a problem, act!

(d)  To maximize survey completion, consider building in time at the end of the meeting for participants to take post-surveys before they leave. After the meeting: 

• Which goals were met? Which goals were not met? 

• What worked well from the organizers’ perspective? What fell short? 

• What worked and did not work from participant perspectives? What information might be missing? 

• Share this assessment publicly, if possible. 

After the meeting

(a) Conduct any post-surveys and analyze all survey data (summative assessment). Questions to include:

1. Which DEIJA goals were met? Which goals were not met?

2. What worked well from the organizers’ perspective? What fell short?

3. What did and did not work from participant perspectives?

4. Do participants have suggestions for improvement?

(b)  Articulate issues to be addressed at future meetings and what will be done differently. For example, if a specific demographic was missing at the meeting, ask why and what will be done to address that omission in the future. Also note who (i.e., which demographic group(s)) attends once and does not come back for future meetings.

(c) Share assessments with all interested parties, including organizers, attendees, those who have funded events, and leadership. Disseminate findings in publications, if desired, and share publicly, if possible. Provide a summary of what the organizers/evaluators learned, followed by a concrete set of next steps or what they will do based on what they learned.

Authors [Updated Guide]

Emily Jack-Scott (Aspen Global Change Institute), Kristen Luna Aponte (UCAR), Rehemat Bhatia (Pal(a)eoPERCS, Earth Science Women’s Network), Mona Behl (University of Georgia Sea Grant, AMS), Jana Burke (Pal(a)eoPERCS, Michigan State University), Melissa Burt (Colorado State University, Earth Science Women’s Network), Max Cordes Galbraith (University of Vermont), Pedro Godoy (Pal(a)eoPERCS, University of São Paulo), Rebecca Haacker (NCAR), Chrissy Hall (Pal(a)eoPERCS, Lafayette College), AJ Lauer (NCAR), Julie Maldonado (Livelihoods Knowledge Exchange Network), Deb L. Morrison (University of Washington; CLEAR Environmental), Natasha Sekhon (Pal(a)eoPERCS, Brown University), Elizabeth Sibert (Pal(a)eoPERCS, Yale University), LuAnne Thompson (University of Washington), Nicole Williams (500 Women Scientists)

Authors [Original Guide]

Angie Pendergrass, Jane Zelikova, James Arnott, Hazel Bain, Rebecca Barnes, Jill Baron, Kuheli Dutt, Miriam Gay-Antaki, Rebecca Haacker, Emily Jack-Scott, AJ Lauer, Aisha Morris, Deb Morrison, Anne-Marie Nunez, Heidi Steltzer, LuAnne Thompson

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank the sustained leadership of certain professional societies and organizations for creating and maintaining this resource, including 500 Women Scientists, Earth Science Women's Network (ESWN), Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI), Pale(a)oPERCS, Mentoring Physical Oceanography Women to Increase Retention (MPOWIR), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) / National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and Livelihoods Knowledge Exchange Network (LiKEN). We also thank Maryam Zaringhalam for designing and formatting the Guide.

500 Women Scientists. (n.d.). Fix the gender pay gap. [online] Available at: https:// 500womenscientists.org/fix-the-gap [Accessed 27 Oct. 2022].

American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2018. Best practices for survey research.

American Disability Act, 2009. Expanding your Market: Accessible Information Exchange Meeting on a Level Playing Field. [online] Available at: https://www.ada.gov/business/ accessiblemtg.htm [Accessed 28 Oct. 2022].

American Evaluation Association, 2011. Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation Public Statement on. (2011). [online] Available at: https://www.eval.org/Portals/0/Docs/ aea.cultural.competence.statement.pdf.

American Geophysical Union, 2017. AGU scientific integrity and professional ethics.

Anadu, J., Ali, H. and Jackson, C., 2020. Ten steps to protect BIPOC scholars in the field. Eos, 101(10.1029).

Arellano, E., 2020. Power Dynamics and Inclusion in Virtual Meetings. Aspiration Tech. Available at aspirationtech.org/files/AspirationPowerDynamicsAndInclusionInVirtualMeetings.pdf.

Atewologun, D. and Sealy, R., 2014. Experiencing privilege at ethnic, gender and senior intersections. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), doi: 10.1108/JMP-02-2013- 0038

Banaji, M.R. and Greenwald, A.G., 2013. Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam. New York: Delacorte Press, 2013.

Barrett, J., 2020. The Ultimate Guide to Conference and Event Surveys. [online] Available at:

https://www.getfeedback.com/resources/online-surveys/ultimate-guide-conference- event-surveys/.

Barrows, A.S., Sukhai, M.A. and Coe, I.R., 2021. So, you want to host an inclusive and accessible conference?. FACETS, 6(1), pp.131-138.

Bates, K., Parker, C.S. and Ogden, C., 2018. Power Dynamics: The Hidden Element to Effective Meetings. Interaction Institute for Social Change, July, 11.

Bilimoria, D. and Liang, X., 2012. Gender equity in science and engineering: Advancing change in higher education. Routledge.

Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E. and Rinehart, J., 2013. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PloS one, 8(10), p.e79147.

CAST. 2019. About Universal Design for Learning. [online] Available at: https://www.cast.org/ impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl#.XEE6289KjOQ

Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW), 2014. Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges (TKs) in Climate Change Initiatives. [online] Available at: https:// climatetkw.wordpress.com/

Concordats and agreements: their role in supporting effective research culture and working environments. 2022. [online] Universities UK. Available at: https:// www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2022-03/concordats- agreements-review_0.pdf.

Daniel, R., 2019. Understanding our environment requires an indigenous worldview. Eos, 100(10.1029).

Davenport, J.R., Fouesneau, M., Grand, E., Hagen, A., Poppenhaeger, K. and Watkins, L.L., 2014. Studying Gender in Conference Talks--data from the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.3091.

Davis, L., 2020. 2018 Keynote: Dr. Lori Patton Davis. ASHE Office. Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zUFPKapzo.

De Picker, M., 2019. Rethinking inclusion and disability activism at academic conferences: strategies proposed by a PhD student with a physical disability. Disability & Society, pp.1–5. doi:10.1080/09687599.2019.1619234.

De Picker, M., 2020. Rethinking inclusion and disability activism at academic conferences: strategies proposed by a PhD student with a physical disability. Disability & Society, 35(1), pp.163-167.

Demery, A.J.C. and Pipkin, M.A., 2021. Safe fieldwork strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors and institutions. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(1), pp.5-9.

Demery, A.J. and Pipkin, M., 2020. Safe Fieldwork Strategies for At-Risk Individuals.

Drummond, C. and Fischhoff, B., 2017. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), pp.9587-9592.

51

Dutt, K. (n.d.). Evidence of Unconscious Bias -Best Practices and Guidelines for LDEO Search Committees. [online] Available at: https://diversity.ldeo.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/ content/Best%20Practices%20Bias%20Search%20Committees%20Mar2018%20.pdf.

Dutt, K., 2018. How implicit bias and lack of diversity undermine science. Scientific American. Ethics Forum. 2012. Ethics Forum» Full Text of the 2012 Ethics Statement. [online] Available at:

http://ethics.americananthro.org/category/statement/.

Ford, H.L., Brick, C., Azmitia, M., Blaufuss, K. and Dekens, P., 2019. Women from some under- represented minorities are given too few talks at world’s largest Earth-science conference.

Ford, H.L., Brick, C., Blaufuss, K. and Dekens, P.S., 2018. Gender inequity in speaking opportunities at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. Nature communications, 9(1), pp.1-6.

Frassl, M.A., Hamilton, D.P., Denfeld, B.A., de Eyto, E., Hampton, S.E., Keller, P.S., Sharma, S., Lewis, A.S., Weyhenmeyer, G.A., O’Reilly, C.M. and Lofton, M.E., 2018. Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(11), p.e1006508.

Freeman, R.B. and Huang, W., 2014. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US (No. w19905). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gay-Antaki, M. and Liverman, D., 2018. Climate for women in climate science: Women scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(9), pp.2060-2065.

Gee, J. and Gee, J.P., 2007. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Routledge. Gee, T., 2018. What Can Conferences Do To Attract More Women Speakers? [online] Trisha

Gee. Available at: https://trishagee.com/2018/04/20/more_women_speakers/. Glauber, K., Miller, B. & Hendren, C. O., 2020. Applying human-centered design to virtual

conference planning, s.l.: Integration and Implementation Insights.

Greene, S.E., Antell, G.S., Atterby, J., Bhatia, R., Dunne, E.M., Giles, S., Groh, S.S., Hanson, E.M., Hilton, J., Knight, H. and Kraftl, P., 2021. Safety and belonging in the field: a checklist for educators.

Haugh, D. (n.d.). Yale University Library Research Guides: Academic Poster Resources: Accessibility. [online] guides.library.yale.edu. Available at: https://guides.library.yale.edu/ academic-poster-resources/accessibility.

IACC Guide to Dietary Requirements. (n.d.) [Online] Available at: https://www.iacconline.org/ guide-meeting-delegates-dietary-requirements

Jimenez, M.F., Laverty, T.M., Bombaci, S.P., Wilkins, K., Bennett, D.E. and Pejchar, L., 2019. Underrepresented faculty play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity and inclusion. Nature ecology & evolution, 3(7), pp.1030-1033.

Jones, T.M., Fanson, K.V., Lanfear, R., Symonds, M.R. and Higgie, M., 2014. Gender differences in conference presentations: a consequence of self-selection?. PeerJ, 2, p.e627.

Kappel, E.S. and Thompson, L., 2014. Invited Scientific Papers and Speakers and Fellow Awardees Little Progress for Women Oceanographers in the Last Decade. Oceanography, 27(4), pp.24-28.

Kazil, J., 2017. Best Practices for Lactations Spaces for Event Organizers. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@jackiekazil/best-practices-for-lactations-spaces-for- event-organizers-8b6c77797c45 [Accessed 27 Oct. 2022].

King, N.S. and Pringle, R.M., 2019. Black girls speak STEM: Counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), pp.539-569.

Kozlowski, D., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R. and Monroe-White, T., 2022. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(2), p.e2113067119.

Lauer, A. (2020). Cyberinfrastructure professionals' withdrawal cognitions: An exploration of race, gender, and occupational climate in high performance computing. Doctoral dissertation, Creighton University. http://hdl.handle.net/10504/129478

leanin.org. 2020. The State of Black Women in Corporate America. [online] Available at: https:// leanin.org/research/state-of-black-women-in-corporate-america.

Legalities of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Q&A Session with Our Online MJ-LEL Program Director. 2020. Tulane Online Law Blog. Available at: https:// online.law.tulane.edu/blog/legal-truths-sexual-harassment.

Loder, N., 1999. Gender discrimination ‘undermines science’. Nature, 402(6760), pp.337-337.

Malcom, S. and Feder, M., editors. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students' Diverse Pathways. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 May 18. 3, The Culture of Undergraduate STEM Education.

Marín-Spiotta, E., Barnes, R.T., Berhe, A.A., Hastings, M.G., Mattheis, A., Schneider, B. and Williams, B.M., 2020. Hostile climates are barriers to diversifying the geosciences. Advances in Geosciences, 53, pp.117-127.

McGuire, W., 2020. Labor Acknowledgement In Advance Of Black History Month. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu4maCxPCOk.

McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox TH. Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups. Small Group Research. 1996; 27(2):248-264. doi:10.1177/1046496496272003

MeetingPlay, 2020. 17 Questions to Ask in Your Virtual Post-Event Survey. [Online] Available at: https://www.meetingplay.com/blog/17-questions-to-ask-in-your-virtual-post-event-survey.

Michaels, S. and O’Connor, C., 2012. Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

Missouri Statediversity.missouristate.edu. (n.d.). Cultural and Religious Observances - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion - Missouri State. [online] Available at: https:// diversity.missouristate.edu/Observances.htm.

National Science Board, 2015. Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington.

Native Governance Center, 2019. A guide to Indigenous land acknowledgment. [online] Native Governance Center. Available at: https://nativegov.org/news/a-guide-to-indigenous-land- acknowledgment/.

Native Land Digital, 2019a. NativeLand.ca. [online] Native-land.ca - Our home on native land. Available at: https://native-land.ca/.

Native Land Digital, 2019b. Territory Acknowledgement. [online] Available at: https://native- land.ca/resources/territory-acknowledgement/.

Nederveld, A. and Berge, Z.L., 2015, "Flipped learning in the workplace", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 162-172.

Nielsen, M.W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Joshi, A., Leahey, E., Smith-Doerr, L., Woolley, A.W. and Schiebinger, L., 2017. Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), pp.1740-1742.

Office of Disability Employment Policy. 2019 www.dol.gov. (n.d.). Universal Design Resources | U.S. Department of Labor. [online] Available at: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/ program-areas/employment-supports/universal-design/resources [Accessed 27 Oct. 2022].

Paul, 2021. Why You Should Take Meeting Breaks. meetric. Available at: https:// www.meetric.app/blog/why-you-should-take-meeting-breaks.

Paul, 2022. The Zoom Fatigue Is Real - Fix It. meetric. Available at: https://www.meetric.app/ blog/the-zoom-fatigue-is-real-fix-it.

Perkins School for the Blind. (n.d.). Make your meeting accessible. [online] Available at: https:// www.perkins.org/resource/make-your-meeting-accessible/ [Accessed 28 Oct. 2022].

Reparations 4 Slavery. (n.d.). Acknowledgement. [online] Available at: https:// reparations4slavery.com/acknowledgement/.

Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) | NSF - National Science Foundation. [online] Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/od/recr.jsp.

Sardelis, S. and Drew, J.A., 2016. Not “pulling up the ladder”: women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to speak at conservation conferences. PloS one, 11(7), p.e0160015.

Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H.L., Radersma, R., Hinsch, M., Buehler, D.M., Saul, J., Porter, L., Liker, A., De Cauwer, I., Johnson, P.J. and Santure, A.W., 2013. Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of evolutionary biology, 26(9), pp.2063-2069.

Seeds for Change. 2011. Consensus Decision Making - Seeds for Change. [online] Available at: https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus.

Seeds for Change. (n.d.). A short guide to Facilitating Meetings. [online] Available at: https:// www.seedsforchange.org.uk/shortfacilitation.

Serrato Marks, G., 2018. How to make professional conferences more accessible for disabled people: guidance from actual disabled scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists Blog: The Equation, 8. [online] Available at: https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/how-to- make-professional-conferences-more-accessible-for-disabled-people-guidance-from- actual-disabled-scientists/.

Small, A., 2020. Land Acknowledgments Accomplish Little. inside higher ed. [online] 9 Jan. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/01/09/why-land- acknowledgments-arent-worth-much-opinion.

Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, 1996. Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing.

SpeedNetworking.com, 2019. The Value of Face to Face Meetings: Why In-Person Is Better Than Online. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@shannonkelly_80469/ the-value-of-face-to-face-meetings-why-in-person-is-better-than-online-14db4d3bea7f.

Steele, C.M., 2011. Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. WW Norton & Company.

Stewart, T. ’TJ’, 2021. On Labor Acknowledgements and Honoring the Sacrifice of Black Americans. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education. Available at: https:// www.diverseeducation.com/demographics/african-american/article/15108677/on-labor- acknowledgements-and-honoring-the-sacrifice-of-black-americans.

Sufi, S., Nenadic, A., Silva, R., Duckles, B., Simera, I., de Beyer, J.A., Struthers, C., Nurmikko- Fuller, T., Bellis, L., Miah, W. and Wilde, A., 2018. Ten simple rules for measuring the impact of workshops. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(8), p.e1006191.

Timmer, A., Sutherland, L.R. and Hilsden, R.J., 2003. Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts. BMC medical research methodology, 3(1), pp.1-7.

Trewin, S., Hanson, V., Rode, J., Mankoff, J., Brady, E., Morris, M.R. and Hwang, F., 2019. Accessible Conference Guide. ACCESS: Special Interest Group on Accessible Computing. [online] Available at: http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/ resources/accessible-conference-guide/ [Accessed 28 Oct. 2022].

University of Michigan. (n.d.). Personally Identifiable Information (PII) / Sensitive Data Guide. [online] Available at: https://safecomputing.umich.edu/dataguide/?q=node/89.

University of Minnesota, Accessible U (n.d.). Slide Presentations | Accessible U. [online] Available at: https://accessibility.umn.edu/what-you-can-do/create-accessible-content/ slide-presentations.

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), W.W.A. (n.d.). How to Make Your Presentations Accessible to All. [online] Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ teach-advocate/accessible-presentations/.

Xu, Y.J. and Martin, C.L., 2011. Gender differences in STEM disciplines: From the aspects of informal professional networking and faculty career development. Gender Issues, 28(3), pp.134-154.

Yee, M., 2019. Why ‘safe spaces’ are important for mental health—especially on college campuses.