‘The emancipatory research paradigm must be seen not in terms of one single project or projects but as a process’ (Barnes, 2001). 

Barnes (2001) is talking about a particular research method, but his message applies to the wider research field if we wish to be equal, diverse and inclusive. It is perhaps unsurprising that a research approach that seeks to transform the material and social relations of research production, and to promote disabled people’s individual and collective empowerment, should be user-led and accountable to those being researched (Barnes, 2003). Nor, perhaps is it surprising if such research seeks to involve diverse voices from the outset and as key participants throughout. But what about a less obviously participatory approach, such as a quantitative study of earring wearing in North London (I made that up)? What has that got to do with equality, diversity and inclusion? 

A simple answer is (perhaps) the diverse group of people who are undertaking the research. 

Transcript (49.1 KB) .

The advantages of having a diverse group of people involved in any activity are well documented and underpin many of the arguments behind EDI initiatives. You are drawing on a wide range of life experiences, cultures, languages, insights and practices. As a result, you all benefit from a broader mix of opinions, beliefs, skills and approaches. The nature of diversity, though, is endless. Representing this diversity is of itself not something that is achievable within a small group of researchers. It cannot be delivered in a tick box manner, by involving people from a spread of categories, in the way that echoes a representative sample. We soon end up at ‘the exasperated, etc’ (Butler, 1990) and diminish the intersectional nature of so many people’s lived experiences. This concern is explored more fully in another OpenLearn article.

Diversity is also a professional issue. It is about ages, stages and fields; it is about knowledges, methods and reputations; it is about theories, paradigms and methodologies; it is about titles, publications and grants; it is about audiences, networks and funding streams. When we are seeking to develop a team that reflects values associated with EDI we are situating the social diversity of ‘the embarrassed, etc’ (Butler, 1990) in with this professional diversity. Inevitably there can never be a perfect solution or perfect team, but we can seek a balance of people at different points of their research journey, who bring a valuable mix of protected characteristics and academic understandings in ways that enrich the overall research and simultaneously enhance the capacity of those at the start of their research journey.  

There are some fairly obvious things to do that can support the creation of such a balance of people. You can be open in calling for collaboration, not just asking people you know, but making sure the opportunity is spread through a range of networks. If you can begin this process fairly far in advance of framing a bid, then people have a chance to build a project designed around their strengths, rather than having to fit into a pre-determined spot. It is also important to be flexible when making appointments. For instance, there is a tendency to focus on academic merit when appointing a research associate, but that can be an exclusionary criterion. I – a white heterosexual cisgendered man – have sat in on interviews in which a candidate who more closely represented the population the research would focus on was immediately rejected by other (also white heterosexual cisgendered and able-bodied) members of the panel because they did not come from the research background of the rest of the team, the background valued by the panel. Being open to reflect on our biases is essential, not in retrospect, but from the outset. In exploring the good, the bad and the ugly of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in building a research team, Hattery et al. (2022) demonstrate that equity is not only an ethical commitment, it is an epistemic one as well. Every aspect of research is changed when multiple positionalities are equitably included throughout the process. 

You can demonstrate your trust and belief in people in different ways too. For instance, you can support people to experience being a Principal Investigator or make sure that Work Package leads are shared among people with a variety of backgrounds. Ilyés (2019) explores how approaches associated with agile working can support researchers in this. They talk about cohering around an agreed topic, in ways that suit the capacities of those involved and support them to research. As well as having a group of people at various career stages, they recognise that team members have different motivations for being involved, and that these motivations and levels of commitment may fluctuate. 

A challenge in setting up such a team, with flexibility and trust at its heart, is to be able to work together in ways that reflect those values. There are a great many challenges that can arise because of the relational nature of the team and the bureaucratic nature of much associated with academic activity. A sensible early step, therefore, is to establish and agree what might be considered ground rules of fairness. I was involved in a 3-year project, for instance, where our agreed values were laid down and shared at the outset of the project in a Ways of Working document and our principles of participation, consent, security and privacy (Travnicek et al., 2022). Similarly, McGinn et al. (2005) talk about the need to establish principles of collaboration, ownership and authorship. They developed 15 principles framed around: 

• participation and administrative issues
• authorship credit
• giving special consideration and protection to graduate student team members
• Intellectual Property rights
• decision making and problem resolution.

Their principles could be quite broad, such as all research team members are expected to participate in a collaborative and equitable fashion, or be more specific, such as graduate student team members being first authors on any publications resulting from their research.

A good example of how to implement this is provided by the credit (contributor roles) taxonomy, which includes 14 roles, typically played by contributors to research outputs. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output.

All of this is not just a benefit to the team but also to the wider success of a project. For example, it is not unusual for funding councils or bodies to have criteria associated with the kinds of issues being discussed here. I recently applied for a grant from the Norwegian Research Council and they evaluated a proposal on the basis of ‘The extent to which appropriate consideration has been given to ethical issues, safety issues, gender dimension in research content and use of stakeholder/user knowledge’. Priority would also be given to ‘projects led by women project managers’.

Developing (as) a diverse team in equitable ways is an ongoing process. It is something which we need to pay attention to at every stage of a research project. We need to revisit and reflect on these issues of participation throughout. In many ways they begin before we begin and do not end when we end. Like all valuable relationships, they keep on growing.