Print This PostIn my experience of the academic world so far, I’ve met some researchers who are willing to parade me around like a show pony for being both queer and neurodiverse (and, oh my gosh, in my case also a woman, a diversity triple threat!) and then pat themselves on the back for their successful inclusivity, a “job well done.” Not quite, that’s actually tokenism, and a heavy mental weight of the academic experience for those of us whose intersectional identity is 1) not the academic norm, and 2) very helpful to reference when trying to prove inclusive lab environments on grant applications.
So, what exactly is tokenism? And how does it affect the worlds of academia and dementia research?
The definition of tokenism can differ somewhat (for example, some people may not consider my opening statement a tokenistic experience, I certainly do), but broadly speaking, in the academic context it refers to the idea of including a few individuals who belong to underrepresented groups, and superficially demonstrating diversity of an institution without making the required systematic changes which would allow for true inclusivity – they are a “token”, the visible bit of the iceberg of inclusivity, if you will. Or, perhaps more fittingly – the swan paddling analogy. It is important to acknowledge at this juncture that the term “tokenism” has origins in the fight against racial segregation. However, my own lived experience is from the LGBTQIA+ perspective, and as such, so will this blog post be. The general ideas and themes are widely applicable to many intersectional identities, however.
So, if we want to combat tokenistic practices within our research and clinical environments, we must first understand the characteristics of tokenistic behaviours and the experience of being considered a “token”:
- Being under-represented but orchestrating an illusion of diversity. It is no secret that there are many groups of people that are under-represented in certain academic fields. However, sometimes when individuals who fit these characteristics join a group, they are used to suggest that the group is more diverse than it actually is. This feeds into the problematic idea of “diversity hires” and the distinction between that and having a truly EDI-centric hiring process.
- Symbolic diversity. Or essentially, a focus on optics, rather than actual and long-standing change. The person in question (“token”) may also have a perceived value which changes contextually, and their treatment can be reflective of this. For example, diversity looks great on grant applications, but individuals who do not fit the assumed norms of an academic workplace can often be looked down on or seem as a “problematic” member of staff when for example they require certain accommodations, particularly when those accommodations cost money.
- Lacking actual inclusivity. If the focus is only on the superficial, the token individuals will bear the brunt of the effects of not addressing systemic issues with true inclusivity. This includes everything from a lack of adequate support to microaggressive behaviours (“a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalised group (such as a racial minority)” – Merriam-Webster) and can affect their everyday working experience, every single day.
- Not meeting expectations placed upon them. Being one of a small group of people for whom the pressure of representing diversity is upon – or sometimes, being the only person in this position – can be incredibly taxing, both on your mental health and emotional wellbeing. The expectations put on individuals who fit within these under-represented intersectional identities can also leave the individual stuck in a bit of a “rock and a hard place” situation where they feel obligated to do a given activity to help their lab, in spite of feeling the weight of such obligations. Additionally, this is time-consuming and can pull a person from the duties of their job description in a way that is not required or expected for their peers whom they are in competition with when it comes to funding, leadership, and promotion. Can they put the EDI activities they’ve done on their CV when other can’t? Sure. But is the value of lived experience always respected and understood? No. And consider too that such activities often (let’s be honest, almost always) are not accompanied by additional payment in-line with other EDI experts, and instead are done for free by the individual, touted as “valuable experience”.
- Hurdles in career advancement. Similarly, if an institution only engages in superficial inclusivity, there may remain barriers which can prevent career progress for marginalised individuals, such as a lack of role models and socio-economic security, and mental ill-health.
- The ‘echo chamber’ problem. If your representation of certain groups is tokenistic rather than truly inclusive, you will additionally be limiting the perspectives which you consider in your day-to-day work, which in turn can result in certain patient groups being missed.
Clearly, this has a far-reaching impact as a research scientist, but the knock-on effect can also be felt by the patient groups who may benefit from our research. My strong personal belief is that any and all successful research efforts should be accessible to everyone. Period. And I am sure that that sentiment is echoed by many. Except, if you can find excuses to not include groups – often, I’ve found this to be because the group in question is a small part of a much bigger whole – are you making your research efforts accessible to everyone? As far as that small group is concerned, no. Not at all. And what if we recruit a diverse cohort of participants, do they all make it into the research? Sometimes no, for ‘fear’ of adding in an additional variable to the analysis, or for the N being too small. From a purely statistical perspective, perhaps valid. From an ethical perspective, perhaps less so.
However, all of this being said, truly diverse recruitment can be very challenging, and sadly efforts may not be reflected in final study cohorts and related research. In the world of dementia research, we tend to be dealing with older patients who may have grown up with laws such as Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988 (which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality), thereby complicating their feelings around disclosure. For those who do disclose, they can end up being overburdened by either being expected to represent the whole group, making their relative role in a study disproportionate, or can be called upon over and over again for other studies where representation is lacking. Although no person is ever obligated to take part, there can be additional subtle pressures of expectation to do so when your group is not adequately represented. All of these challenges are further exacerbated by the complexities of gaining informed consent for dementia patients themselves.
Despite it being challenging to address certain aspects of tokenism, it is imperative to a holistic approach to dementia research, and a future where access to treatment is for all. If we don’t make changes to be inclusive in a manner which avoids tokenism, we will miss chances to innovate and improve the clinical landscape and will negatively affect how successful the transition to a clinical context is. We need to encourage a comfortable research environment which is why being aware of our own tokenistic approaches and microaggressions is so important.
Jodi Watt
Author
Dr Jodi Watt is a Postdoctoral Researcher at University of Glasgow. Jodi’s academic interests are in both healthy ageing and neurodegenerative diseases of older age, and they are currently working on drug repurposing for dementia. Previously they worked on understanding structural, metabolic and physiological brain changes with age, as measured using magnetic resonance imaging. As a queer and neurodiverse person, Jodi is also incredibly interested in improving diversity and inclusion practices both within and outside of the academic context.
Adam Smith
Dementia Researcher
Dr Yvonne Couch
