How should I respond to race-based exclusion in my lab?

Dear Nature,

I am an early-career researcher of Asian heritage working in an engineering research group in western Europe.

Some laboratory members who grew up in Western Europe, including ones in senior positions, seem to have higher expectations of me and my Asian colleagues than they have of others. We’re expected to perform better academically and we have to follow strict rules to receive the same level of respect as other team members. The general sense is that we should clean the lab more, and achieve more, than others.

International lab members are routinely referred to as “a problem”. For instance, when I make a mistake, it’s common to hear someone say that people from my country “don’t understand the rules”. I find that occasional comments such as these have now become normalized. And the people making these comments don’t seem to see the problem.

More subtly, informal lab communication, chitchat and support tend to be conducted in the local language, rather than in English, which makes it difficult for international researchers to participate in conversations and access information. I feel separated and distant from those on the team who speak the local language.

This has been happening for years; it’s not a few isolated incidents. Inclusion policies exist at the university, but in practice, they are not always followed. Unequal treatment and race-based comments feel like needles. I’ve been experiencing these things for years and it makes me want to leave the lab, and maybe also the country.

How should international early-career researchers respond when exclusion and racialized behaviour persist in academic environments? I want to speak up for my community, but what options exist when speaking out feels unsafe, even years into a career? — An international early-career researcher

The advice

“A lot of the negative experiences that come from race-based inequalities are the more subtle forms,” notes Billy Wong, a higher-education researcher at the University of Reading, UK. Wong suggests finding allies as a first priority. “When you look for people who share similar experiences, you create a network of peer support,” he says.

Joelyn de Lima, who advises the Swiss Federal Technology Institute of Lausanne (EPFL) on pedagogy matters, recommends that you and the other people affected start documenting every relevant incident. Log what happens, when, where, who else was present and what impact it had. She adds that it might be worth taking note of whether you are excluded from any research papers or projects, and whether there is a lack of opportunities for researchers of particular nationalities.

Documenting events is helpful because “if at some point you want to escalate”, you have proof of a pattern of behaviour that’s difficult to argue against, de Lima points out. “Data talk. If I show you an established pattern that has occurred across people and across time, that then helps you to make informed decisions in the future,” she adds. A collection of evidence can thus help to deter gaslighting — when someone suggests that you’re being oversensitive or misinterpreting the situation.

Jan Van Maele, a language and communications researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium, also suggests that you try to find some allies in your lab. Some of your colleagues might be able to “challenge instances of race-based comments and speak up against unequal treatment with less risk”.

Van Maele also notes that, often, people who make insensitive comments are unaware of the hurt that they are causing. One way to encourage them to change their behaviour is to talk to them about the effect that their actions are having on you, if you feel comfortable doing so.

De Lima says that a mismatch of expectations could be caused by the ‘model minority’ label, which portrays people from some Asian nations as especially competent and successful. The stereotype persists that “as a culture, you’re supposed to be high performing, so you should be performing more now”. She points out that a sense of “psychological safety” has been shown to improve aspects of group performance¹, and that reminding colleagues of this could motivate them to be kinder at work.

De Lima also suggests implementing a code of conduct in the lab. Ideally, this would be your principal investigator’s responsibility, but anyone can initiate the creation of one. A code of conduct means that expectations can be set without needing to single out individual team members who have engaged in harmful behaviour, and could include clear standards for behaviour, tackling favouritism and any unequal expectations that you’ve identified.

Find a common language

Language-based exclusion is common, but often unintentional and difficult to police in informal groups. De Lima admits that she sometimes slips into her own first language of Konkani when she’s with other people who are also from the Indian state of Goa, even in mixed-language groups.

But that doesn’t mean that this is always harmless in a work setting. “Vital pieces of information are sometimes passed in informal conversation, and then you tend to miss those,” de Lima comments. “But you also miss out on feeling like a part of the group.” A lab code of conduct could contain a clause about speaking in a shared language wherever possible. Including that as an expectation might be a way to challenge accidental exclusion.

However, she acknowledges, “you can’t really have a code of conduct for informal spaces”. The line between social chatter and work-relevant conversation is blurry. In-group socialising is a difficult thing to change, Wong warns; you might need to pick your battles. It could also be helpful to show that you’re making an effort to learn the local language or languages.

Escalate or exit if needed

The advice-givers don’t recommend escalating the matter as a first step. Ideally, the suggestions above would be enough to address the problem.

But if discriminatory behaviour persists, it might not be safe to go to your principal investigator. Instead, Wong says, you and your affected colleagues could approach someone at your institution in your subfield, or — if necessary — outside the institution.

“Within European universities, there are often ombudspeople or persons of trust,” de Lima explains. They are required to keep details confidential, and they will have useful information about the university context. At a minimum, Van Maele advises, you could look into alternatives to your current job. “The better your alternatives, the stronger you can feel in addressing the actions you perceive as exclusive and unjust in your current work environment.”

Shared from Nature Careers for this and more great content visit doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01130-6