Creating Accessible & Inclusive Research Environments

In this episode of The EDII Catalyst, Dr. Alexandra Pedersen (Manager for EDII Capacity Development, Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute) and Heidi Penning (Former Associate Director, Queen’s University Equity and Accessibility Services) join us to discuss the creation of inclusive and accessible research environments.

Hosted by Dr. Emily Albright, this episode explores the development of the Diversity and Equity Assessment Planning (DEAP) Tool for Researchers, its role in fostering equity, diversity, inclusion, and Indigenization practices, and how reflection can drive meaningful cultural change across our research communities.

Transcript begins below video.  

Available on all streaming platforms:  

YouTube | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | iHeartRadio | Amazon Music   

The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity. This episode was originally filmed on November 9th, 2023. Please note that references to current events, roles, and project statuses may no longer be accurate.

If you would like to learn more about the latest on Queen’s Equity Service’s Diversity and Equity Assessment Planning (DEAP) Tool or the DEAP Tool for Researchers co-developed by the McDonald Institute and the Human Rights and Equity Office at Queen’s University, please visit the links provided.

Welcome back to The EDII Catalyst, where we explore topics of equity, diversity, inclusion and Indigenization in STEM. In today's talk, we're going to be discussing creating inclusive and accessible research environments, and I'm honoured to have two special guests with me today.

First, we have Heidi Penning, who is currently an Equity Advisor with a specialty in research at the Human Rights and Equity Office. Over the last twenty years, she has held many intersecting roles when it comes to EDII and belonging in the research space at Queen's. She's passionate about the way public policy, organizational will, human behavior, and community realities intersect to create transformational change for equity-deserving groups.

We also have Dr. Alexandra Pedersen, who is the Manager for EDII Capacity Development at the Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute and an Adjunct Professor here at Queen's University. She has a rich academic background with a PhD in Geography and a Master's in International Studies. Her graduate research focused on experiences of Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous communities’ experience with and resistance to imposed development.

I'm so excited to have you both here with me today. You both have very diverse and unique experiences with EDII work, so perhaps we can start with you both telling us some of the key milestones that brought you to your present roles, and how you both know each other.

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: I first came to Queen’s in 2011 as a PhD student, where I started my degree in geography and didn't finish until 2018—community-based research can take a long time! While here at Queens, I’ve been able to be a Teaching Assistant and a Research Assistant, and have really found a love for research ethics. I’ve volunteered within my department to learn more about ethics and how ethics are managed at a university level, as well as the philosophical considerations and our relationships to people, to nature, and to others in our relational ethics writ large.

I took an alternative academic leap as I was finishing my PhD and stepped into a research administration role with University Research Services under the Vice Principal of Research portfolio here at Queen's. I grew within that office to be able to support academic faculty who were writing grants to support their research environments, and that's where I was lucky enough to have my first interactions with Heidi, talking about what equity looks like in research spaces. This was at a time where equity in research was an emerging topic within Tri-Council grants and Canada was moving towards policy and commitments to expand equity, diversity and inclusion opportunities within universities.

Heidi was working within those spaces of research and examining how EDII fits within a research landscape and training environment. From the perspective of research services, she was asking how we can best support faculty as we think about merging and incorporating EDII as key principles within our spaces. Heidi, what were your impressions about those first meetings and how we got together on this project?

HEIDI PENNING: [Alex and I] got together along with some of her colleagues to co-facilitate a research workshop for faculty and I thought, ‘I really like this one!’ This was before her somewhat new role in EDII, and we talked about how, with Tri-Council leading the way, we’ve got to think about how we can support our researchers. Our conversation made me think, ‘well, we have a DEAP Tool ready for academic units, and we have a DEAP Tool for administrative units. Maybe we've done this a little bit backwards.’ Maybe we should have started at an individual level—we'll talk more about that. That was my first impression. I remember it was very cold and we were standing out on the sidewalk of the new Mitchell Hall. And I said, “You want to work together?” And that was the beginning of a really cool working relationship and a friendship.

When I was at Research Services and Contracts, I liked to joke [that] there's only four kinds of contracts. At the time, I was thinking, ‘is this going to be the rest of my career at the university?’ I was looking for what I was passionate about, and I am passionate about all things equity. I have a 28-year-old son with severe autism, so I feel like I’ve been advocating and pushing systems and removing barriers for a very long time. It made me think, ‘hmm, I'd like to work in the Human Rights and Equity office. How do I do that?’ It pushed me to start volunteering on the Senate Educational Equity Committee. Never underestimate the power of being a volunteer and making connections and building your network. That is how I got in.

When there was an opportunity to take a ten-month contract, I was able to negotiate a leave of absence from research services to complete the contract, and then I was asked to fill in a one-year maternity leave. At that point, I was asked to make a decision: is it going to be Research Services, or is it going to be the Human Rights and Equity office? It was not hard to take that leap and say, “I choose what I'm passionate about.” That was in 2009, and here I am today.

Thank you both for sharing that. You both touched on the DEAP Tool project; could you elaborate a little more on what the DEAP Tool stands for and about this project?

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: For sure, I'll kick that off. After working at Research Services, I took a leap to another research institute, as you'd mentioned before: the Arthur B McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute. You might ask, ‘what's a geographer doing working with physicists? Or, why are the physicists working with the geographer?’ And I will say, to the credit of the folks that I work with here at Sterling Hall, it's an incredibly interdisciplinary group and one that is very open to different ideas and new ways of thinking.

When I took the leap to this position, it was a business development position at the time, but I still had a real passion for EDII work, both from my PhD as well as the volunteer and work opportunities at Research Services. I proposed with Heidi a collaboration in cahoots behind the scenes. We wanted to make this a reality, building off the award-winning work of the Human Rights and Equity office’s diversity and equity assessment planning, the DEAP Tool. Could we make this a reality within the grassroots space of a research lab or a research group? And could we involve the McDonald Institute faculty, who are physicists, mechanical and materials engineers, chemists, geologists as well? Could these be the folks that would like to pilot this opportunity with us? Heidi’s office picked that opportunity up with us in partnership.

HEIDI PENNING: I had to pitch it to the person I was reporting to at the time and said, “I think we're on to something. Could I dedicate time to this partnership with MI?” Everyone there was willing and open minded to thinking outside the box. I said, “I need 0.2 of a full time equivalent to dedicate to this.” They replied, “well, what are you doing?” I said, “I don't know yet.” To the credit of my boss in our office, they said, “okay, go off and create something and come back.” And so it's been a tremendous opportunity to be creative and dive in to really talk with the faculty members.

EDII work can be very scary for individual researchers who have never really had cause to think too much about it, right? We're trying to demystify this work and take a very appreciative inquiry approach to it as well. We like to say that everyone has something they’re doing that involves EDII work already, and we just need to figure out how we can build on that. That's a really important message that Alex and I carry with us. When we speak to our researchers, we care about them and want them to be successful.

Could you dive into some of the features and functions of the DEAP Tool and explain to us how it works?

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: Right now, the project is in its pilot phase. In its present state, it is a workbook with Heidi and I as cogs in the wheels behind the scenes guiding this tool’s functionality. We have invited researchers to first self-assess themselves across fourteen different equity, diversity, inclusion and Indigenization indicators that have been co-built with the piloting faculty members, as well as with feedback from some of our initial pilot work expanding those indicators. Some of the indicators assess spaces in which faculty members hold power and can create change. We start that at the lab level, but we are also mindful that faculty members are a part of departments, and they're a part of larger schools within their own research institutes and a part of disciplines much larger than that.

We use those fourteen indicators within a self-assessment to ask, ‘are you a novice? Are you able to start dipping your toes into the realm of what EDII principles mean within a research space? Or are you already someone who, like Heidi has said, is doing the work but maybe doesn't have the ability to translate what that work is to a grant, or to demonstrate to a committee the work that you're doing towards equitable research spaces?’

We take an ethnographic approach, as Heidi had alluded to before, where we work with the faculty members as agents of trust; as people that can work with them side by side to do an ethnographic deep dive into their research environment or their training landscape to see what is working well and what could be working differently. When we were walking those faculty through those fourteen indicators in those steps, we're also asking them to make some goals—Heidi, if you want to pick up at that point.

HEIDI PENNING: There's a very old, tired saying that what doesn't get measured doesn't get done. In the circles that I've traveled in, I've worked with many equity practitioners across the country. I’ve heard them say that equity work is like throwing Jell-O at the wall and hoping something sticks. We don't have time for that. We need to be strategic. Hence the DEAP Tool. With the goals, if you're a novice or if you’re a sponsor, you choose your goals. The goals are meant to be measurable key performance indicators. This whole assessment is intended to make you pause. So many think, ‘equity work, oh my gosh, that’s just more work. Where are we going to find time for that?’ But the goals created through the DEAP Tool are important and going to reap dividends quite quickly if you do this work in a meaningful way.

What's really important is that you understand your baseline—you self reflect and understand the baseline of your lab or your group—and then you set goals that are measurable and attainable. As you go through the spectrum from novice to advocate to mentor and sponsor, you measure your progress against yourself. Where did you start and where do you want to be? Every year, you're improving. Thinking optimistically, I'm hopeful you can then benchmark yourself against your discipline and ask, ‘how's my lab doing compared to other labs and other institutions?’

We've really driven home that we need to measure transformational changes. Change is like an ice cube, right? It could be water, or it could be frozen and revert to water. We're not talking about change—we’re talking about transformational change. We're not looking in the rear-view mirror anymore. We're being progressive and looking forward to ask, ‘how do we create this transformational shift in how we do research?’

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: That transformation ultimately means a culture shift within academia and within STEM disciplines, and the tool is meant to help faculty to capture some of the elements of that cultural change.

We know that cultural change takes time, small steps forward, but the accumulation of those small steps all together will start to make significant change within our spaces. That's a big part of the tool too, and why I'm really pleased that we have this opportunity to be working hand-in-hand with faculty on this particular project: we know there will be false starts, trips, goals that are set that will not be met or reached because our assumptions will change or our knowledge of our fields will change as we start to dip our toes into trying to create more equitable spaces.

A great example of [transformational change in approaching the creation of equitable spaces] is the creation of gender-neutral washroom spaces. There's an example on campus; a movement towards creating more gender-neutral spaces. The process of creating these spaces meant eliminating other spaces on that floor. What would happen instead if we made more space instead of taking other space away? What if we made more inclusive opportunities instead of taking away from some and shifting others? This is an opportunity to work with faculty at a long scale.

Remembering that this tool is cyclical, we're going to try and work with this tool every year and take small steps forward, and as we move forward, evaluate what worked and what didn't. If something didn't work, if our goal was not achieved, was our goal too lofty, or should we take a step back and try again in a different way? This tool is a way of learning with each other. As more people use the tool within our offices, we'll be able to build a community of practice and knowledge of what people are doing within their spaces to amplify what's working and talk about what's not. That gives a helping hand to anyone that is trying to do the work and is nervous about false starts and what not to do.

My last comment is that I'm a geographer, and I love talking about space and place. One of the things about the tool that we love is that it is flexible with your particular geography, your particular discipline, or your department, your university. We know that equity looks different depending on the demographics of students that we have that come to universities, whether we're located north or south. The DEAP Tool allows you to think critically, but also self-reflect and ask, ‘where am I? Who is here with me? Who is missing right now that I would like to invite and welcome into my space? And why is that?’

HEIDI PENNING: It all comes down to those three questions: ‘Who's not here? Why is that? What are we going to do about it?’ Recurring evaluation is important not just to further improve the tool, but to start conversations. We talk a lot about culture, cultural competencies, and cultural humility. I talk about cultural courage a lot. It takes courage to hold that mirror up to yourself and the lab for which you're responsible.

We encourage developmental evaluation as well. This is iterative and flexible enough to tweak and adjust. As opposed to saying, ‘we've got a three-year strategic plan and at the end of three years, we’ll evaluate,’ this is meant to be developmentally evaluated as you start to implement these goals.

Thank you so much. That was a great overview of what the tool is meant to do. A lot of our listeners today are students, postdocs, and early researchers as well. Our conversation right now is targeted a lot at a larger level, but these key takeaways are relevant to you as well. You can reflect on the work that you're doing even as a student. As you grow in your roles and keep these reflections in mind, this will really help you as you go along.

We are getting close to our end of the time today. What were some of the challenges and opportunities that you've encountered in developing the DEAP Tool? Since we are starting to wrap up, could you give us any final thoughts or takeaways?

HEIDI PENNING: I’ll touch on opportunities we’ve encountered. Being an appreciative inquiry kind of person, the opportunities here are endless. The DEAP Tool needs to find its purchase, and this is why we're piloting this with our McDonald Institute (MI) folk. They’re affiliated with partners outside the institution and have opportunities grow the scope of this tool this beyond MI and beyond Queen's.

They’ve pushed us to ask, ‘what does the application look like when we expand the scope?’ It might create ethical questions, like whether we want to partner with other institutions where people don't feel physical or psychological safety, for example. That's a challenge in the landscape that we're in. Grants are competitive by nature, and here's Alex and I saying, ‘let's cooperate. Let's share goals.’ Those are some of the challenges that we need to address. What about you Alex, what do you think?

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: Those are excellent examples. Some of the challenges that we've faced—and this comes back to understanding the strengths of the tool, but also the flexibility of it— is that we still don't know what every research space looks like or what the challenges are for each lab. One of our key goals has been building something living that can continually grow and be flexible, but is also not so nebulous that someone struggles to use the tool on their own and take their first steps if they don't have someone like Heidi or myself working with them.

One of the challenges for us in the future is as we scale, I would very much like us to move into a position where we are training other trainers, people that are embedded at other institutions that would like to use this tool in support of faculty, of graduate students, of postdocs as well. There are postdocs and graduate students in the room today; is this something in the future that maybe they want to look at? We know some of our faculty are trying to collaborate with their whole labs and teams.

When faculty members use this tool, they want it to be a team responsibility, to be taking up EDII principles within their space, which I think is phenomenal. It shouldn't be top down. You should be building this space as a community. That will be one of the big challenges with this tool: to scale it. But I'm grateful that the Human Rights and Equity Office has been very open in thinking about, ‘can we module this? Can we put this online? Can we get this more accessible to people?’ That's what I think our ultimate goals will be.

Support from the Vice Principal of Research has been crucial. Part of this self-assessment is already embedded within three research EDII modules that are available to faculty as members of Queen's. In cases like the Carbon to Metals Coating Institute and MI, we can share those modules with our partners outside of Queen's as training opportunities. There are many other opportunities that are embedded within this. I'm hopeful that the tool will continue to strengthen folks as they're working towards their goals.

Thank you both very much. Let's open the floor up to our live audience Q&A.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm a faculty member of Queen’s Department of Chemistry and part of the EDII committee in our department, and I just wanted to thank you. I recently participated in the DEAP Tool demonstration and training as part of our cyclical program review. Our department has done quite a lot of work, but we’ve struggled with documenting or tracking it. It's really nice to learn about the story behind the DEAP Tool; it makes it a lot more pleasant to work with, knowing what has gone into its development. Everyone has good intentions and puts in effort, but this tool helps us maximize impact while minimizing our effort. Committees come and go, but this ensures it will be easy for others to see what has been done and continue from previous efforts. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. A big thank you both to Heidi and Alex for being here and sharing more of this story with us. Before we go, we ask all of our guests: what is your favourite chemistry molecule or atom, if you have one? And if you don't have one, then maybe just your favorite science fact.

DR. ALEX PEDERSEN: Knowing my background and my research, there are critical minerals and metals that exist that are challenged by Indigenous peoples asking, “whose land is this? And who has the rights to metals under the Earth's surface?” I deal a lot with gold and silver—or at least the resistance to the extraction thereof—and so I won't call them my favourite, but I will call them the ones that I am critical of.

Thank you both again for joining us today. If anyone has any questions or would like to follow up on this episode, please feel free to reach out. We'd be happy to answer any questions.