IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v116y2019p14931-14936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the prevalence and quality of conference codes of conduct

Author

Listed:
  • Alicia J. Foxx

    (Plant Biology and Conservation Program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; Plant Science and Conservation Program, The Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL 60022)

  • Rebecca S. Barak

    (Plant Science and Conservation Program, The Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL 60022; Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; Plant Biology Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823)

  • Taran M. Lichtenberger

    (Plant Biology and Conservation Program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; Plant Science and Conservation Program, The Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL 60022)

  • Lea K. Richardson

    (Plant Biology and Conservation Program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208; Plant Science and Conservation Program, The Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL 60022)

  • Aireale J. Rodgers

    (Urban Education Policy Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089; Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089)

  • Evelyn Webb Williams

    (Plant Science and Conservation Program, The Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL 60022)

Abstract

Efforts to increase inclusion in science face multiple barriers, including cultural and social behaviors in settings such as academic conferences. Conferences are beneficial, but the culture can promote inequities and power differentials that harm historically underrepresented groups. Science suffers when conference culture propagates exclusion and discrimination that leads to attrition of scientists. Codes of conduct represent a tool to shift conference culture to better support diverse scientists and clearly detail unacceptable behaviors. We examined the prevalence and content of codes of conduct at biology conferences in the United States and Canada. We highlight how codes of conduct address issues of sexual misconduct and identity-based discrimination. Surprisingly, only 24% of the 195 surveyed conferences had codes. Of the conferences with codes, 43% did not mention sexual misconduct and 17% did not mention identity-based discrimination. Further, 26% of these conferences failed to include a way to report violations of the code and 35% lacked consequences for misconduct. We found that larger and national conferences are more likely to have codes than smaller ( P = 0.04) and international or regional ( P = 0.03) conferences. Conferences that lack codes risk creating and perpetuating negative environments that make underrepresented groups feel unwelcome, or worse, actively cause harm. We recommend that conferences have codes that are easily accessible, explicitly address identity-based discrimination and sexual misconduct, provide channels for anonymous impartial reporting, and contain clear consequences. These efforts will improve inclusivity and reduce the loss of scientists who have been historically marginalized.

Suggested Citation

  • Alicia J. Foxx & Rebecca S. Barak & Taran M. Lichtenberger & Lea K. Richardson & Aireale J. Rodgers & Evelyn Webb Williams, 2019. "Evaluating the prevalence and quality of conference codes of conduct," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(30), pages 14931-14936, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:116:y:2019:p:14931-14936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14931.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:116:y:2019:p:14931-14936. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.