The Ecology of Exclusion: A Systems-Thinking Approach to Cultivating Equity in Research

Introduction: The Ghost in the Machine

For over two decades, I have built a career in academia, a world I entered with a profound belief in its core promise: that through rigorous inquiry and open debate, the best ideas would rise, and knowledge would advance for the benefit of all. As a researcher and, later, an institutional leader, I have taken immense pride in this mission. Yet, for just as long, a ghost has haunted the halls of my institution and, I have come to realize, the entire enterprise of modern research. This ghost is the quiet, persistent, and undeniable pattern of brilliant minds being sidelined, discouraged, and ultimately lost—minds that too often belong to women, to people of color, to researchers with disabilities, or to those from less-privileged backgrounds.

This is not an abstract concern for me. It is the story of Dr. Evelyn Reed—a name I have changed to protect her privacy, but whose story is painfully real. Evelyn was my mentee, a postdoctoral fellow in my department, and one of the most incisive scientists I have ever known. Her work on cellular signaling was groundbreaking. She possessed a rare combination of technical brilliance and creative intuition. She was, by any measure, destined for a stellar career. Yet, she is no longer in academia.

Her departure was not a single, dramatic event, but a slow erosion. It was the thousand daily microaggressions, the subtle questioning of her authority in the lab, the disproportionate service requests that amounted to a “cultural tax” on her time.¹ The final blow came in the form of a grant rejection from a major federal agency. The reviews were not just critical of the science; they contained a coded language of doubt, questioning the project’s “significance” and “feasibility” in ways that felt deeply personal. It was a rejection not just of her proposal, but of her potential. When she told me she was leaving to join a private biotech firm, she said, “I’m tired of fighting to prove I belong here. I just want to do the science.” Her departure was a loss for our field, but it was a personal failure for me. It was the moment I had to admit that the system I had dedicated my life to was not the meritocracy I believed it to be.

Like many well-intentioned leaders, I had tried to fix the problem. I chaired Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committees. I helped launch mentorship programs. I championed revisions to hiring guidelines. Each effort felt important, yet the aggregate result was negligible. The attrition continued. The funding and publication gaps persisted. We were polishing individual spark plugs while the engine itself was failing. It felt as if we were fighting a ghost in the machine—an invisible, systemic force that thwarted our best efforts at every turn.²

The epiphany, when it came, was not from a management seminar or a strategic planning retreat. It arrived in the form of a paper from a completely different field: public health. It described the Social-Ecological Model, a framework used to understand the complex interplay of factors that influence human health.⁴ It posits that an individual’s behavior is shaped by nested layers of influence, from their personal relationships to their community, their institutions, and the broader societal policies that govern their lives.⁶

Reading it, I realized I had been using the wrong metaphor. Academia is not a machine to be fixed. It is a complex, living ecosystem.

This simple shift in perspective was transformative. Disparity was not a bug in the system; it was a feature of an ecosystem that had evolved over centuries to favor certain “organisms” while creating hostile conditions for others. The individual struggles I was witnessing were not isolated incidents but symptoms of an unhealthy habitat. The piecemeal solutions failed because they ignored the deep, interconnected roots of the problem. You cannot save a struggling plant by only tending to its leaves; you must examine the soil, the water, the sunlight, and the other organisms in its environment.

This report is the product of that realization. It is an attempt to map the ecology of exclusion in academic research. We will journey through the four interconnected levels of this ecosystem—the Individual, the Interpersonal, the Institutional, and the Systemic—to diagnose precisely how and where disparities are produced and perpetuated. By understanding the system as a whole, we can move beyond polishing spark plugs and begin the real work of landscape architecture: cultivating a healthier, more biodiverse, and ultimately more innovative research ecosystem for all.

The Scope of the Challenge

Before we begin our journey, it is essential to grasp the multifaceted nature of the problem. Research disparity is not a single issue but a complex web of interconnected challenges affecting numerous groups across various metrics.

Table 1: The Multifaceted Nature of Research Disparity

Dimension of Disparity	Key Metrics and Manifestations
Gender	Gaps in publication rates, citation counts, and prestigious authorship positions.7 Underrepresentation in senior faculty and leadership roles.8 Significant disparities in STEM fields like computer science and engineering.9
Race & Ethnicity	Pervasive funding gaps at major agencies like the NIH and NSF.11 Underrepresentation in faculty positions, particularly in STEM.13 Experiences of microaggressions, tokenism, and systemic bias.15
Geography	A power imbalance between the “Global North” and “Global South,” where Northern research is treated as universal and Southern research as localized.16 Barriers to funding, publication, and collaboration for Southern researchers.18
Disability	Significant underrepresentation in academia.20 Barriers to physical and digital accessibility, challenges in securing accommodations, and pervasive ableism and stigma.21 Higher rates of unemployment and lower income compared to non-disabled peers.22
Socioeconomic Status	Barriers for first-generation and low-income researchers who may lack financial support, social capital, and familiarity with the “hidden curriculum” of academia.24 Financial pressures can lead to higher dropout rates and limit career choices.24

This table illustrates the breadth of the challenge. These are not separate problems to be addressed by separate committees. They are interwoven manifestations of a single, systemic issue within our shared research ecosystem.

Section I: The Individual Level – The Organism in the Ecosystem

The journey into our ecosystem begins with the individual researcher—the organism striving to survive, grow, and reproduce its ideas. The Individual Level of our model examines the characteristics that influence a researcher’s trajectory: their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and personal identity.⁶ It is at this level that the abstract forces of disparity become a lived, embodied reality, shaping not only a researcher’s career but their very sense of self. The health of the organism is inextricably linked to the health of its environment.

The Lived Reality of Exclusion: Voices from the Ground

Statistics can quantify disparity, but they cannot capture the daily, grinding experience of exclusion. To understand the true cost, we must listen to the voices of those who navigate these challenges firsthand.

Gender: The Weight of a Tape Measure

The story of Nancy Hopkins, a tenured professor of biology at MIT, is a powerful testament to the tangible nature of gender bias. In the 1990s, feeling consistently marginalized and under-resourced compared to her male colleagues, she did something remarkable: she took out a tape measure and physically measured the square footage of every lab and office in her building. Her data proved what she had long suspected: she and other senior female faculty had been allocated significantly less space, a concrete metric of their devalued status.²⁶ Her act of measurement was an act of defiance against a system that tried to convince her the inequity was all in her head.

This experience is not unique. Women in academia recount stories of being penalized for behaviors that are praised in men, such as being called a “bitch” for being assertive. They describe being kicked off research projects after becoming pregnant or being discouraged from even filing complaints about discrimination for fear of negative repercussions.²⁸ These are not mere annoyances; they are signals that the academic habitat is not designed for them.

While personal stories provide the texture, aggregate data confirms the pattern. A comprehensive analysis of over 293,000 research articles reveals the stark statistical reality behind these experiences.

Table 2: A Statistical Snapshot of Gender Disparity in Academic Publishing

Metric	Finding	Source
Overall Authorship	Women hold less than 30% of all authorship positions.	7
Prestigious Authorship	Women hold only 18.1% of last authorships (a position typically reserved for the senior, guiding researcher), while men have more than double the odds of securing this role.	7
Highly Cited Researchers	Women’s share of Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs) grew from only 13.1% in 2014 to 14.0% in 2021, a rate slower than their growth among authors overall. In fields like computer science and engineering, women’s share would need to increase by over 500% to close the gap.	29
Productivity	Male scientists publish an average of 13.2 papers in their career, while female authors publish 9.6—a 27% productivity gap.	30
Citation Rates	Articles with male key authors (first or last) are cited more frequently than those with female key authors.	7

This data validates the lived experiences of women like Nancy Hopkins. The smaller lab space is a physical manifestation of the same systemic devaluation reflected in fewer last authorships, lower citation rates, and a persistent productivity gap. The numbers prove that these individual stories are not exceptions; they are data points in a vast, troubling trend.

Race: The Burden of #BlackInTheIvory

In 2020, the hashtag #BlackInTheIvory erupted on social media, creating a space for Black academics to share their experiences with racism. The stories were a raw, painful, and necessary corrective to the myth of a post-racial academy. They revealed a constant state of vigilance and exhaustion.

Testimonials included being mistaken for custodial staff, with a dean suggesting that wearing a tie might help them be recognized as students.¹⁵ One researcher recounted a senior professor yanking her hair to see if it was “real”.¹⁵ Another shared the sting of being told their National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award was a foregone conclusion “because you are a black woman,” a comment that simultaneously erased their hard work and expertise.¹⁵ These are not just insults; they are acts of dehumanization that communicate a fundamental message: you do not belong here. This constant barrage of microaggressions and overt racism creates a hostile environment that drains cognitive and emotional resources that should be dedicated to research and teaching.

Disability: The “Illusion of Inclusion”

The academic world, with its relentless demands for productivity and its often-rigid structures, can be a particularly unforgiving environment for researchers with disabilities. Many fear disclosing their conditions, knowing it could lead to negative perceptions about their competence and productivity.²¹

One anonymous researcher’s story powerfully illustrates the “illusion of inclusion.” Promised a supportive, accommodating environment, they were instead met with escalating work demands, exclusion from collaborative activities, and outright hostility when their health impacted their work pace. The Principal Investigator (PI) told them they would be unable to thrive in graduate school and threatened termination, comparing them unfavorably to able-bodied researchers.³¹ This experience is emblematic of a broader pattern where institutions may comply with the letter of the law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but fail to foster a genuinely inclusive culture. Accommodations are often delayed or implemented incorrectly, and researchers report that disability service offices are often under-resourced and more focused on students than faculty.²¹ The result is a system where disabled researchers are forced to become relentless self-advocates, spending precious time and energy fighting for basic access that their non-disabled peers take for granted.²¹

Socioeconomic Status: The Unspoken Barrier

Socioeconomic status is often the invisible dimension of disparity. First-generation and low-income (FGLI) students and researchers often arrive on campus without the same financial safety net, social capital, or familiarity with the “hidden curriculum” of academia that their more privileged peers possess.²⁴ They may struggle to afford unpaid research internships, conference travel that is critical for networking, or even the application fees for graduate school.²⁴ Narratives from FGLI students highlight the immense pressure of balancing academic work with paid employment and family responsibilities, a juggling act that can lead to burnout and higher dropout rates.²⁴ This lack of resources is not just a practical hurdle; it creates a psychological barrier, reinforcing a sense of not belonging in an environment built by and for the socioeconomically privileged.

The Internalized Ecosystem: How External Bias Becomes Internal Burden

The constant exposure to these exclusionary signals has a profound internal impact. The external environment becomes an internalized burden, shaping a researcher’s psyche and performance in two critical ways.

First is the phenomenon of stereotype threat. This refers to the psychological risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s own group.³³ A Black student taking a difficult math test, for example, may be burdened not only by the test itself but by the fear that a poor performance will confirm racist stereotypes about their intellectual ability. This added cognitive load actively impairs performance, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not about a lack of confidence; it is a rational response to a social environment saturated with negative stereotypes. For researchers from marginalized groups, every grant proposal, every conference presentation, and every peer review carries this extra weight.

Second is the concept of cumulative disadvantage. This theory posits that small, early-career disadvantages can compound over time, leading to large, seemingly insurmountable gaps later on.¹ A study of NIH grant applicants found that while Black and white PhD students published a similar number of papers during their training, the papers by Black students received significantly fewer citations. This initial “citation gap” widened considerably as the researchers progressed in their careers.³⁵ A small initial deficit in recognition—perhaps due to less prestigious mentorship or implicit bias in the field—snowballs over time. The researcher with fewer citations has a harder time getting their first grant, which means they have fewer resources to produce the next paper, which further widens the citation gap. This is the ecological principle of the Matthew Effect: to those who have, more will be given.

The environment does more than just present external obstacles; it actively shapes the internal capacity of the organism to compete. The myth of a pure meritocracy, where success is solely a function of individual talent and effort, becomes a particularly cruel form of gaslighting in this context. When individuals from underrepresented groups encounter these systemic barriers, they are often led to believe—or internalize the belief—that their struggles are personal failings.¹⁵ This fosters imposter syndrome and a reluctance to challenge the system, as doing so risks being labeled a complainer or, worse, incompetent. In this way, the system protects its own mythology by compelling its victims to blame themselves, ensuring the ghost in the machine remains invisible.

Section II: The Interpersonal Level – Symbiosis, Parasitism, and Predation

Moving outward from the individual, we arrive at the Interpersonal Level. This is the realm of direct relationships and interactions: the networks of colleagues, the guidance of mentors, the judgment of peer reviewers, and the dynamics of collaboration.⁶ In our ecosystem analogy, this level is defined by the nature of these interactions. Are they

symbiotic, where relationships are mutually beneficial and foster growth? Or are they parasitic and predatory, where one party benefits at the expense of another, draining resources and stifling potential? The health of these interpersonal webs is a critical determinant of a researcher’s ability to thrive.

The Power of Symbiosis: Mentorship as a Keystone Species

In any healthy ecosystem, certain “keystone species” have a disproportionately large effect on their environment relative to their abundance. In the academic ecosystem, the mentor is such a species. Effective mentorship is far more than just offering advice. It is a symbiotic relationship that involves sponsorship, advocacy, protection, and the crucial transfer of “tacit knowledge”—the unwritten rules of navigating a field, from grant writing strategies to political maneuvering.³⁶

Research confirms that high-quality mentorship is a powerful predictor of retention, productivity, and career satisfaction, particularly for researchers from underrepresented minority (URM) groups.³⁶ Successful programs often utilize a multi-pronged approach, including:

• Personalized Mentorship: Pairing junior researchers with senior mentors who have successfully navigated similar challenges, providing focused guidance.³⁶
• Group Mentorship: Creating cohorts that foster peer support and shared learning, reducing the sense of isolation that many URM researchers experience.³⁶
• Peer Mentorship: Connecting individuals with peers who can share relatable strategies for overcoming common hurdles.³⁶

However, the absence of this keystone relationship is a catastrophic failure point in the ecosystem. URM trainees frequently report experiencing inadequate mentoring. This is often not due to malice, but to a mentor’s lack of awareness or understanding of the unique hardships their mentee faces.³⁷ Studies show that Black scientists are less likely than their white counterparts to be mentored by high-impact senior faculty, effectively cutting them off from the powerful networks and sponsorship opportunities that are essential for securing grants and advancing their careers.³⁸

Institutions often treat mentorship as a programmatic checkbox to be ticked, but this misses the point. A true mentor functions like a beaver in a stream: they don’t just help other animals, they fundamentally reshape the local environment, creating new niches, resources, and opportunities for others to thrive. The goal of institutional policy should not be simply to pair individuals, but to cultivate the conditions—through resources, training, and rewards—for these vital, ecosystem-engineering relationships to form and flourish.

The Old Boys’ Network and Parasitic Collaboration

While symbiotic relationships build up the ecosystem, parasitic ones drain it. This is most evident in the exclusionary nature of academic networks and the exploitative dynamics of certain collaborations. Co-authorship and professional networks are not neutral; they often form along existing lines of power and privilege, reinforcing the status quo.

Data shows that Black researchers tend to have smaller professional networks and fewer co-authors, which directly constrains their publication counts, citation rates, and overall research impact.¹ This is the “Old Boys’ Network” in action—a system where access and opportunity are brokered through informal, homogenous social circles.

This parasitic dynamic is starkly illustrated on a global scale by the practice of “parachute science” (also known as “helicopter” or “neo-colonial” research).³⁹ This occurs when well-resourced researchers, typically from the Global North, conduct research in a Global South community, extract data and samples, and then publish the findings with little to no involvement, credit, or benefit for the local scientists and communities.⁴⁰ One researcher from the Global South described the frustration of this dynamic: Global North collaborators often have the funding and thus control the research agenda, while the local expert is relegated to the role of data collector or facilitator.⁴¹ This is not true collaboration; it is an academic form of resource extraction, a parasitic relationship where the host community is exploited for the career advancement of the visiting researcher. This interpersonal behavior is a direct symptom of a larger, systemic power imbalance that devalues local knowledge and expertise.

The Gatekeepers: Predation in Peer Review

Perhaps the most critical—and fraught—interpersonal interaction in academia is peer review. It is the formal gatekeeping process for both funding and publication, intended to be a crucible of objective evaluation. However, a mountain of evidence reveals it to be a process rife with bias, acting less like a filter for quality and more like a predatory mechanism that culls researchers from marginalized groups.

• Gender Bias: Women’s research is often undervalued in peer review. This contributes directly to lower publication rates in top-tier journals, fewer citations, and a persistent gap in perceived impact.⁷ The very act of evaluation is skewed.
• Racial Bias: The data on grant reviews is damning. A landmark 2011 study found that applications for NIH R01 grants from Black PIs were funded at roughly half the rate of those from white PIs.¹² Subsequent research has shown this gap persists.¹ Even when publication records are similar, applications from Black researchers are scored lower or are less likely to be discussed at all.³⁴ This suggests that the bias lies not just in the evaluation of the person, but in the perceived value of the topics they choose to study, which are often dismissed as “niche” or less significant.³⁵
• Geographic Bias: The peer review system is overwhelmingly stacked against researchers from the Global South. The dominance of English as the language of science creates an immediate barrier.³⁹ Reviewers often use coded, discriminatory language, such as demanding a paper be “vetted by a native English speaker,” even when the English is impeccable. This is a proxy for a deeper bias against the source of the knowledge.⁴¹ Studies have shown that a double-anonymous review process, where the identity of both the author and reviewer are hidden, is significantly more equitable than the single-anonymous standard, which gives a distinct advantage to Global North researchers.³⁹

These are not random acts of predation. They are the predictable outcomes of a system where the “predators”—the gatekeepers on review panels and editorial boards—are drawn overwhelmingly from the dominant demographic groups. This lack of diversity among the evaluators ensures the perpetuation of a narrow, homogenous definition of “excellence.”

Section III: The Institutional Level – The Habitat and Its Rules

Scaling up from individual interactions, we arrive at the Institutional Level. This encompasses the organizations that create the “habitats” where research happens: universities, funding agencies, and publishers. This level is about the formal and informal rules, the allocation of resources, and the institutional culture that defines the environment. An organism’s ability to thrive is fundamentally determined by the quality of its habitat. A resource-rich, supportive habitat can buffer against challenges, while a resource-poor, hostile one can make survival impossible, regardless of the organism’s individual strengths.

The Funding Drought: A Barren Landscape for Many

Funding is the water of the academic ecosystem; without it, research withers and dies. The distribution of this vital resource is one of the most powerful mechanisms through which institutions perpetuate disparity. An analysis of the two largest federal funding agencies in the United States—the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—reveals a landscape that is lush for some but a barren desert for others.

The data is stark and irrefutable. A 2011 study revealed that Black PIs applying for NIH R01 grants were funded at approximately half the rate of white PIs.¹² A decade later, this gap persists.¹ At the NSF, a similar pattern emerges. From 1999 to 2019, proposals from white PIs were consistently funded at rates above the overall average, creating an “award surplus” that grew to nearly 800 awards in 2019 alone. In contrast, proposals from Asian, Black, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander PIs were consistently funded

below the average rate, creating a significant “award deficit”.¹²

This disparity is not just about who gets funded, but what gets funded. At the NSF, white PIs are the only group whose proposals for both Research and Non-Research activities are funded above the overall rate. For Black PIs, a much smaller proportion of their awards are for core Research grants compared to their white colleagues, indicating a racial stratification in the very types of activities being supported.¹² This is compounded by evidence from the NIH that topics frequently proposed by Black researchers—such as community-level health interventions—are less likely to receive funding than the lab-based biomedical topics more often proposed by white researchers.³⁵

The implications of this funding drought are catastrophic and create a vicious cycle. The lack of funding is not just a resource gap; it is a validation gap. A grant award is the ultimate institutional stamp of approval. When certain groups and certain topics are systematically de-funded, the institution sends a powerful message about who and what it values. This lack of validation erodes confidence, fuels the imposter syndrome discussed at the Individual Level, and directly contributes to talented researchers like my mentee, Evelyn, leaving the field. The funding gap is a primary mechanism through which institutions actively shape who is considered a “legitimate” scientist and what is considered “important” science, perpetuating a cumulative advantage for those who already hold power.⁴³

Table 3: Racial & Ethnic Disparities in U.S. Federal Research Funding (NIH & NSF)

Agency & Metric	White Researchers	Black Researchers	Asian Researchers	Hispanic Researchers	Source
NIH Funding Likelihood	Baseline	~50% lower funding rate compared to white PIs.	–	–	1
NIH “Super PI” Status	11.5% of White PIs are SPIs.	5.6% of Black PIs are SPIs. Black women are 71% less likely than White men to be SPIs.	–	–	38
NSF Relative Funding Rate (1999-2019)	+8.5% (above average)	-8.1% (below average)	-21.2% (below average)	–	12
NSF Award Deficit/Surplus (2019)	+798 award surplus	–	-432 award deficit	–	12

The University as Habitat: The Illusion of Inclusion

Universities are the primary habitats for most researchers. In recent decades, nearly every university has adopted a mission statement espousing a commitment to diversity and inclusion.² Yet, for many, this commitment remains purely conceptual, a gap between rhetoric and reality that creates an “illusion of inclusion”.³¹

The primary failure is that institutions often treat the symptoms (a lack of diversity) without diagnosing the disease (a hostile habitat). Many DEI initiatives focus on “pipeline” programs or recruitment, aiming to bring more underrepresented individuals into the institution.³ However, data on attrition shows that the problem is often not getting people in the door, but keeping them from fleeing a non-inclusive environment.¹⁴ As in ecology, you cannot successfully introduce a new species into a habitat that cannot sustain it. The organism will either leave or fail to thrive. Institutions that focus on “counting heads” (diversity) without fundamentally changing the institutional culture, policies, and power structures (equity and inclusion) are engaging in a form of ecological malpractice. They are planting seeds in barren soil.

This is exacerbated by several institutional barriers:

• Performative DEI: Many DEI initiatives are criticized for focusing on outcomes without addressing root causes.⁴⁵ The debate over mandatory diversity statements in hiring is a case in point. While intended to promote equity, critics argue they have become ideological litmus tests that encourage performative responses rather than a genuine assessment of a candidate’s ability to contribute to an inclusive environment.⁴⁶
• Institutional Inertia: Real change requires buy-in from the highest levels of leadership, but is often met with resistance.⁴⁴ Furthermore, during times of financial instability—a chronic condition for many universities—institutions tend to revert to traditional, conservative evaluation schemes that reinforce existing hierarchies and give advantages to dominant groups, stalling or even reversing diversification efforts.⁴⁷
• Lack of Administrative Diversity: The lack of diversity is most acute at the highest administrative levels.⁴⁴ This means that the people with the most power to change the habitat often have the least lived experience of its hostility, creating a profound empathy gap.

The Publishing Ecosystem: Prestige, Paywalls, and Power

The final institutional habitat to consider is the world of scholarly publishing. Here too, the rules of the environment are structured to benefit the powerful.

• The Prestige Hierarchy: Journals from the Global North hold a near-monopoly on prestige, measured by metrics like Impact Factor. Journals from the Global South are often perceived as lower quality, are less likely to be indexed in major databases, and are seen as “regional” rather than “international”.¹⁹ This forces even the best researchers from the South to seek publication in Northern journals, subjecting them to the biased peer review processes discussed earlier.
• The Open Access Paradox: The shift toward Open Access (OA) publishing was intended to democratize access to knowledge. However, it has inadvertently created a new barrier: the Article Processing Charge (APC). For a researcher in the Global South, an APC of several thousand dollars can be equivalent to multiple months’ salary.⁴⁰ Even when waivers are available, they are often insufficient or difficult to obtain. This transforms the ability to publish openly from a public good into a privilege reserved for the well-funded, reinforcing the very inequalities it was meant to dismantle.¹⁹
• Homogenous Leadership: The editorial boards of the most prestigious journals remain overwhelmingly dominated by researchers from the Global North.¹⁹ This lack of diversity among the ultimate gatekeepers ensures that the standards of what constitutes “important” and “rigorous” research continue to reflect a narrow, Eurocentric worldview.

Section IV: The Systemic Level – The Climate and Geopolitical Tides

The final level of our ecosystem model is the Systemic Level. This is the broadest context, the macro-climate that shapes all the levels within it. It encompasses the pervasive societal norms, deep-seated cultural beliefs, historical legacies, and public policies that create the environment in which our academic habitats exist.⁴ The winds and tides at this level—of politics, economics, and culture—determine the long-term conditions for the entire ecosystem.

The Geopolitics of Knowledge: The Global North/South Divide

The distinction between the “Global North” (North America, Western Europe, Australia, etc.) and the “Global South” (most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America) is not merely geographical. It is a power dynamic rooted in a history of colonialism that continues to shape the production and valuation of knowledge.¹⁶

The core of this dynamic is an unspoken epistemological hierarchy. Knowledge produced in and about the Global North is treated as objective, universal, and theoretically significant. In contrast, knowledge produced in and about the Global South is often framed as localized, particular, a “case study” rather than a source of universal theory.¹⁷ This bias is so ingrained that it appears in the very titles of research papers: articles using data from Global South countries are far more likely to explicitly name the country in the title, implicitly marking the research as geographically bounded and less generalizable.⁴⁹

This hierarchy perpetuates a model of “trickle-down science”.¹⁸ The research agendas, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies are developed in the North and then “applied” in the South. This creates a dependency where the Global South relies on Northern institutions for solutions to local problems, stifling the development of endogenous, context-specific knowledge and alternative scientific paradigms.¹⁸ It is a system that ensures intellectual authority and the greatest benefits of research flow from the periphery to the center, mirroring historical colonial economic patterns.⁵⁰

The Two Cultures Problem: Enduring Gaps in STEM

The systemic nature of disparity is thrown into sharp relief when we compare different disciplinary cultures, particularly the persistent and often widening gaps in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

While women have reached or exceeded parity in overall college graduation rates and even in some STEM fields like biology and psychology, they remain profoundly underrepresented in the math-intensive and highest-paying fields: computer science, engineering, and physics.⁹ In computer science, the gender gap has actually

worsened over the past two decades; women earned 28% of bachelor’s degrees in the field in 2000, but only 18% by 2015.¹⁰ This is not a “pipeline” problem in the traditional sense; it is a problem of a specific set of fields being culturally misaligned with or hostile to women.⁹

Racial disparities are also uniquely severe in STEM. While Black and Hispanic students are just as likely as their white peers to enter college as STEM majors, they are significantly more likely to switch majors or leave college altogether.¹⁴ This disparity in persistence is much larger in STEM than in the humanities or social sciences, even after controlling for academic preparation.¹⁴ This points to something uniquely exclusionary about the culture and structure of STEM education and careers.

The common defense—that STEM is a pure meritocracy based on objective truth—is a cultural myth that masks the depth of the problem. In fact, a UK-based study found that the attainment gap for Black students was wider in STEM subjects than in the humanities.⁵² This shocking finding challenges the very notion that the “objective” nature of science makes it immune to bias. On the contrary, it suggests that the very culture of objectivity may make it harder for those within STEM to recognize and address the subjective biases that shape their interactions, evaluations, and definitions of talent. The perceived neutrality of STEM is not a shield against bias; it is a core part of the mechanism that allows bias to operate invisibly and unchallenged.

The Political Climate: The Systemic Immune Response

Our research ecosystem does not exist in a political vacuum. In recent years, we have witnessed a powerful and coordinated political backlash against the very concept of equity. Across the United States, legislation has been introduced and passed to dismantle DEI programs, ban the use of diversity statements, and restrict curricula related to race and gender.⁴⁶

This movement is not a collection of isolated events. It is a systemic immune response. Social and biological systems are designed to maintain homeostasis; they have powerful mechanisms to resist change and restore equilibrium. DEI initiatives, for all their flaws, represent a direct challenge to the existing power structures, cultural norms, and resource allocations of the academic ecosystem. The political backlash—fueled by narratives that frame equity as “reverse discrimination” or an attack on “merit”—is a powerful, system-level reaction designed to neutralize this threat and restore the previous, inequitable status quo.⁴⁵

This has profound implications for how we approach solutions. It means that simply making a “business case for diversity”—arguing that it leads to better innovation or financial returns ⁵⁵—is insufficient. While true, such arguments are unlikely to persuade those who perceive equity as a direct threat to their own group’s status and resources.⁴⁵ Countering a systemic immune response requires more than just good data; it requires a sophisticated political and structural strategy to protect and advance the work of creating a more equitable ecosystem. It means we are not just ecologists; we must also be savvy political actors.

Section V: Cultivating a Healthier Ecosystem – A Systems-Change Approach to Equity

Having journeyed through the four levels of our research ecosystem—from the lived experience of the individual to the political climate of the systemic—we have a comprehensive diagnosis of the problem. We see that disparity is not a simple ailment but a chronic, systemic condition rooted in the very structure and culture of our academic world. It follows, then, that the cure cannot be a single pill or a patchwork of isolated treatments. What is required is a holistic, integrated strategy for systemic change—a blueprint for cultivating a healthier, more resilient, and more biodiverse ecosystem.

From Patchwork to Blueprint: The Necessity of Systems Thinking

For too long, our efforts to address disparity have been piecemeal. We create a mentorship program here, a diversity committee there, a workshop on unconscious bias somewhere else. While well-intentioned, these efforts are destined to fail because they treat the components of the system in isolation. As systems thinking teaches us, improving a part does not guarantee improvement of the whole, because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.⁵⁷ A truly effective approach must recognize the interconnectedness of the levels and intervene simultaneously across the entire system.

This requires adopting a formal systems change framework. Such a framework, adapted from work in educational reform, involves several key steps:

1. Assemble a Diverse Equity Team: Create a cross-functional, multi-level team of stakeholders—including students, faculty, staff, and administrators from diverse backgrounds—to lead the change effort.⁵⁸
2. Build an Equity Mindset: Engage in deep, reflective work to understand how bias-based beliefs and dominant narratives shape current policies and practices, and commit to a shared vision of equity.⁵⁸
3. Understand the Local Context: Use both quantitative data (e.g., funding rates, retention statistics) and qualitative data (e.g., focus groups, climate surveys) to conduct a thorough diagnosis of the specific problems within your own institutional habitat.⁵⁸
4. Use Inquiry Cycles for Continuous Improvement: Adopt a data-driven cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and refining interventions, ensuring that strategies are adapted based on evidence of what is actually working.⁶⁰

This approach moves us from reactive problem-solving to proactive ecosystem design. It is a long-term commitment to changing not just the numbers, but the underlying structures, policies, and culture that produce inequitable outcomes.⁶¹

A Framework for Intervention: Treating the Whole Ecosystem

The diagnosis presented in this report provides the foundation for a comprehensive treatment plan. The following framework maps the key problems identified at each level of the ecosystem to specific, evidence-based interventions that institutions can implement. This is not a menu of options to pick and choose from; it is an integrated strategy where interventions at one level reinforce and enable success at others.

Table 4: A Systems-Based Framework for Interventions

Ecosystem Level	Key Problems Identified	Evidence-Based Interventions
Individual	– Internalized bias, stereotype threat, imposter syndrome.33	– Lack of “hidden curriculum” knowledge.25	– Burnout from “cultural taxation” and self-advocacy.1	– Provide Evidence-Based Coaching: Offer programs like the National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD) that teach strategic planning, time management, and scholarly writing skills to all faculty, normalizing professional development.62	– Fund Self-Care and Well-being: Recognize that well-being is a prerequisite for productivity and explicitly provide resources and time for it.62	– Train for Self-Advocacy: Equip researchers, especially those with disabilities, with the knowledge and tools to effectively advocate for their needs, backed by strong institutional support.21
Interpersonal	– Inadequate and biased mentorship.37	– Exclusionary social and co-author networks.1	– Biased peer review for grants and publications.29	– “Parachute science” and exploitative collaborations.39	– Build Multi-faceted Mentoring Networks: Move beyond simple pairing to create structured networks that offer peer, group, and senior sponsorship, ensuring psychosocial and career support.36	– Mandate Double-Anonymous Peer Review: For internal grants and, where possible, advocate for its use by journals to mitigate reviewer bias.39	– Establish Equitable Collaboration Policies: Create clear institutional guidelines for international partnerships that mandate fair authorship, data ownership, and community benefit-sharing to prevent parachute science.42
Institutional	– Biased funding allocation and review criteria.12	– Performative DEI and ineffective “pipeline” programs.44	– Lack of accountability and leadership buy-in.44	– Financial barriers to publication (APCs).19	– Reform Grant Review: Diversify review panels and train them to recognize a broader range of valuable research topics and methodologies. Consider funding proposals from underrepresented PIs that score just below the funding line.64	– Integrate DEI into Core Operations: Link progress on equity goals directly to leadership performance evaluations and compensation. Move from isolated DEI offices to embedding equity responsibilities in every department.56	– Create Centralized Publication Funds: Establish institutional funds to cover APCs for all researchers, removing the ability to pay as a factor in open access publishing. Advocate for publishers to offer more robust waiver policies.40
Systemic	– Geopolitical hierarchy of knowledge (North/South divide).17	– Exclusionary culture in STEM fields.14	– Political backlash and anti-DEI legislation.53	– Promote Global South Journals: Actively cite, review for, and encourage publication in journals from the Global South. Advocate for their inclusion in major indexing services.19	– Build Cross-Disciplinary Coalitions: Foster dialogue between STEM and humanities scholars to critically examine the culture of STEM and develop more inclusive pedagogical and research practices.- Engage in Collective Advocacy: Form consortia of universities and scientific societies to collectively lobby against harmful legislation and advocate for federal policies that protect and advance equity in research.66

The Ultimate Goal: The Biodiversity of Thought

This brings us to the ultimate purpose of this difficult work. Creating a more equitable research ecosystem is not merely an exercise in social justice or demographic accounting. It is a strategic imperative for the future of science itself. The central metaphor of ecology teaches us a final, crucial lesson: a healthy, biodiverse ecosystem is not just fairer; it is more resilient, more productive, and more innovative.⁶⁷

A forest with only one species of tree is incredibly vulnerable to a single disease or environmental change. A forest with a rich variety of species, however, can withstand shocks and adapt to new conditions. The same is true for the ecosystem of research. An enterprise dominated by a single demographic group, with a narrow range of life experiences and perspectives, is engaging in a dangerous form of intellectual monocropping. It will ask a narrow range of questions, employ a narrow range of methods, and produce a narrow range of solutions.

The evidence is overwhelming that diverse teams are better at solving complex problems. They are more creative, consider more possibilities, and make better decisions.⁶⁹ By systematically excluding or marginalizing the vast majority of human talent based on gender, race, geography, or disability, we are crippling our collective ability to address the monumental challenges facing our world, from climate change and pandemics to social and economic inequality.

My journey began with the painful loss of a brilliant mentee, a failure that forced me to see the ghost in the machine. It led me to abandon the flawed metaphor of the machine for the more powerful, holistic lens of the ecosystem. This new perspective does not offer easy answers, but it offers clarity. It shows us that the frustrating, disparate problems we face are all connected, and that the solutions must be as well. The work of cultivating this new ecosystem is the work of generations. It is difficult, it is political, and it requires unwavering commitment. But it is the most important work we can do. For in building a world where every researcher has the chance to thrive, we are also building a world capable of generating the full, vibrant, and biodiverse spectrum of ideas we need to secure our future.

Works cited

1. Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards, accessed August 6, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205929
2. Institutional Barriers to Diversity Change Work in Higher Education – ResearchGate, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258187378_Institutional_Barriers_to_Diversity_Change_Work_in_Higher_Education
3. “Academic Diversity Officers’ Collaboration Capacity: A Case Study on S” by Erica L. Echols, accessed August 6, 2025, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/6970/
4. Social ecological model | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/environmental-sciences/social-ecological-model
5. Increasing Our Impact by Using a Social-Ecological Approach, accessed August 6, 2025, https://teenpregnancy.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/Increasing-our-impact-social-ecological-approach.pdf
6. The Social Ecological Model | Health Promotion | Health & Wellness – William & Mary, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.wm.edu/offices/wellness/ohp/about/sem/
7. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
8. Gender gaps in scientific research: a systematic review. – F1000Research, accessed August 6, 2025, https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1445
9. Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? – Research Centers, accessed August 6, 2025, https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/cdr/docs/cheryan-paper-1
10. Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6759027/
11. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9708090/#:~:text=These%20Research%20funding%20rate%20disparities,77%25%20(Figure%201D).
12. Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9708090/
13. STEM Jobs See Uneven Progress in Increasing Gender, Racial and Ethnic Diversity, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/
14. Study Examines Racial Gaps in Persistence for STEM Programs – Higher Education Today, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.higheredtoday.org/2019/03/04/study-examines-stem-programs-distinctive-racial-persistence-gaps/
15. On Twitter, Black Scientists Call Out Racism In Academia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/black-scientists-on-racism/
16. Global North and Global South – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
17. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8915996/#:~:text=Abstract,i.e.%2C%20%E2%80%9Clocalized%E2%80%9D).
18. The problem of ‘trickle-down science’ from the Global North to the Global South, accessed August 6, 2025, https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/4/e001719
19. How to address the geographical bias in academic publishing – BMJ Global Health, accessed August 6, 2025, https://gh.bmj.com/content/8/12/e013111
20. Researchers with disabilities in the academic system – AAG, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.aag.org/researchers-with-disabilities-in-the-academic-system/
21. Experiences of researchers with disabilities at academic institutions …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11326606/
22. Disability & Socioeconomic Status, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/disability
23. DISABILITY & SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, accessed August 6, 2025, https://worksupport.com/research/documents/pdf/APADisabilityPovertyFactSheet.pdf
24. A Qualitative Study on Barriers in Learning Opportunities in … – MDPI, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/3/56
25. How Socioeconomic Barriers Affect Educators and Community College Students – UVM ScholarWorks, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=tvc
26. The true story of 16 women who fought gender discrimination in elite science with Kate Zernike – American Medical Association, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/health-equity/true-story-16-women-who-fought-gender-discrimination-elite-science
27. The true story of 16 women who fought gender discrimination in elite science with Kate Zernike – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpaaaWXSFU4
28. I think the reason why I am scared to write this story on gender discrimination in academia is precisely why it is needed | The Bioarchaeology of Childhood | Sian Halcrow, accessed August 6, 2025, https://childhoodbioarchaeology.org/2016/01/16/i-think-the-reason-why-i-am-scared-to-write-this-story-on-gender-discrimination-in-academia-is-precisely-why-it-is-needed/
29. Gender gap among highly cited researchers, 2014–2021 …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/3/4/1003/113322/Gender-gap-among-highly-cited-researchers-2014
30. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines | PNAS, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
31. The Illusion of Inclusion: My Journey as a Junior Disabled …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://voicesofacademia.com/2024/09/06/the-illusion-of-inclusion-my-journey-as-a-junior-disabled-researcher-in-academia-by-anonymous/
32. Narrative Inquiry in Practice: A Study Identifying Themes of Persistence and Barriers in the Educational Journeys of American Indian Students in Higher Education – RED: a Repository of Digital Collections – Minnesota State University Moorhead, accessed August 6, 2025, https://red.mnstate.edu/ijgll/vol1/iss3/1/
33. A Longitudinal Study of How Quality Mentorship and Research Experience Integrate Underrepresented Minorities into STEM Careers | CBE—Life Sciences Education, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066
34. Biomedical research funding. NIH uncovers racial disparity in grant awards – ResearchGate, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51581584_Biomedical_research_funding_NIH_uncovers_racial_disparity_in_grant_awards
35. Reflections on race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards – PMC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8886812/
36. How does academic mentoring promote diversity and inclusivity …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://researcher.life/blog/article/how-does-academic-mentoring-promote-diversity-and-inclusivity/
37. (PDF) The Role of Mentoring in Promoting Diversity Equity and Inclusion in STEM Education and Research – ResearchGate, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361399307_The_Role_of_Mentoring_in_Promoting_Diversity_Equity_and_Inclusion_in_STEM_Education_and_Research
38. Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975935/
39. How Can We Solve the Challenges Faced by Authors from the Global South?, accessed August 6, 2025, https://origineditorial.com/original-thoughts-blog/how-can-we-solve-the-challenges-faced-by-authors-from-the-global-south/
40. Three pathways to better recognize the expertise of Global South researchers – PMC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11332133/
41. Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://gh.bmj.com/content/9/4/e014420
42. The Case for Increased Knowledge Exchange & Equity between …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://mitgovlab.org/resources/increasing-knowledge-exchange-equity-between-global-north-south-scholars/
43. Meta-Research: Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation | eLife, accessed August 6, 2025, https://elifesciences.org/articles/83071
44. A Discussion of Diversity and Inclusivity at the Institutional Level …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6153014/
45. Why do people oppose DEI so strongly? : r/AskSocialScience – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/1ikust3/why_do_people_oppose_dei_so_strongly/
46. Diversity Statements in Higher Education: A Turning Point? | Insight …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://insightintoacademia.com/diversity-statements-in-higher-education-a-turning-point/
47. Publication: Institutional Barriers to the Diversification of Academic Workforce – DASH (Harvard), accessed August 6, 2025, https://dash.harvard.edu/entities/publication/9cd4ba08-d80f-467d-8ca0-207b7adb2e34
48. Full article: The Rebirth of the Global South: Geopolitics, Imageries and Developmental Realities – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039410.2025.2490696
49. North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production – Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2021-014.pdf
50. A time for new north–south relationships in global health – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683789/
51. Are Women Reaching Parity with Men in STEM? – Econofact, accessed August 6, 2025, https://econofact.org/are-women-reaching-parity-with-men-in-stem
52. Project 2: STEM vs Arts/Humanities Attainment Gaps – Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning |, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/files/app-par-cycle1-stemm-subjects.pdf
53. Trump administration puts colleges on notice in new DOJ memo: End DEI programs or risk losing federal funds, accessed August 6, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/trump-administration-puts-colleges-on-notice-in-new-doj-memo-end-dei-programs-or-risk-losing-federal-funds/articleshow/123023440.cms
54. Reporting on DEI in higher education: 5 key takeaways from our webinar, accessed August 6, 2025, https://journalistsresource.org/home/dei-higher-education-journalist-webinar/
55. The Scientific Case for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Greater Good Science Center, accessed August 6, 2025, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_scientific_case_for_diversity_equity_and_inclusion
56. How Integrating DEI Into Strategy Lifts Performance – MIT Sloan Management Review, accessed August 6, 2025, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-integrating-dei-into-strategy-lifts-performance/
57. Systems Thinking for Principals of Learning- Focused Schools – ERIC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1228602.pdf
58. The Foundation for Education Equity Systems Change, accessed August 6, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/regions/west/pdf/6.2.1.2_REL_Infographic_Ed_Equity_Systems_Change_Approved_508c.pdf
59. The Equity-Driven Systems Change (ESC) Model: – Skyline College, accessed August 6, 2025, https://skylinecollege.edu/seeed/assets/resources/esc-toolkit.pdf
60. Using a Continuous Improvement Model to Drive Systems Change | IES, accessed August 6, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/learn/blog/using-continuous-improvement-model-drive-systems-change
61. state agencies and systems of higher education leading for equity | sheeo, accessed August 6, 2025, https://sheeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SHEEO_EquityWP.pdf
62. Success Stories – NCFDD, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.ncfdd.org/success-stories/
63. Thriving in Academia: A Model of Faculty Development for Successful, Diverse, Engaged Faculty across Career Stages, accessed August 6, 2025, https://hsfacultyaffairs.ucsd.edu/about-us/Fettes-et-al-OFA-Model-of-Faculty-Development—JFD-January-2025.pdf
64. Does a Lack of Diversity in Research Funding Threaten the Future of Biomedical Research?, accessed August 6, 2025, https://studypages.com/blog/does-a-lack-of-diversity-in-research-funding-threaten-the-future-of-biomedical-research-2/
65. Case Studies – Accelerating Systemic Change Network, accessed August 6, 2025, https://ascnhighered.org/ASCN/SMTI_ASCN_2017/case_studies.html
66. NSF 22-634: Racial Equity in STEM Education (EDU Racial Equity) | NSF – National Science Foundation, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/edu-racial-equity-racial-equity-stem-education/506103/nsf22-634/solicitation
67. What is Biodiversity? Why Is It Important? – American Museum of Natural History, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.amnh.org/research/center-for-biodiversity-conservation/what-is-biodiversity
68. Biodiversity – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed August 6, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/
69. Diversity and Innovation Statistics: How Diverse Teams Drive …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.niagarainstitute.com/blog/how-diverse-teams-drive-innovation-in-the-workplace-statistics