Pulse Survey

nerveimPulse

A Mechanism for Data-Driven DEI Approaches

In 2021, the former Departmental Committees on Diversity and Inclusion (DCDI) conducted a “pulse” survey called nerveimPulse. The survey was developed by the DCDI In-reach subcommittee in partnership with the HMS Diversity, Inclusion, and Community Partnership office.

Our overarching goal was to have a robust mechanism for regular self-assessment of DCDI progress. nerveimPulse will serve as a critical tool for measuring the impact of our work.

By sharing your perspective, you help make our HMS Neurobiology community a place where everyone can thrive. Your input will help guide priorities, practices, and policies in the months and years to come.

nerveimPulse logo

logo designed by Adam Zajac

nerveimPulse 2021 Origin & Findings

Origins of nerveimPulse

Spring 2021

In Spring 2021, the DCDI invited the Department of Neurobiology to participate in the inaugural DCDI In-reach pulse survey called nerveimPulse.

The overarching goal was to develop a method for recurring self-assessment of DCDI progress and to longitudinally assess the impact of DCDI activities, as well as attitudes and sentiments of members of our community on issues of support, inclusivity, and belonging.

Based on the wealth of information collected from our first survey, we settled on a few key findings. We are pleased to publish an Executive Summary of the findings below, and also invite you to peruse the full dataset (direct download link at bottom of page). Please be in touch with us regarding any other findings of your own that resonate with you.

This survey would not have been possible without the enormous contributions of the nerveimPulse working group:

Sofia Soares, postdoc in the Harvey Lab, and Parizad Bilimoria, Assistant Director of HBI, who volunteered their time and effort in August 2020 to write the initial draft of the survey and spearheaded this effort in the early days of the launch of DCDI. Without the partnership and leadership of Maya Jay and Caroline Palavacino-Maggio, cochairs of the In-reach subcommittee, nerveimPulse would not have been possible.

The following individuals are also deserving of special thanks:

Mostafa Amini, Data Scientist in the DICP office, was a tireless partner and contributor, working with us every step of the way to make nerveimPulse a reality. Dr. Joan Reede provided critical feedback on the survey and supported our efforts. Chistopher Reid and members of the DCDI Committee contributed critical feedback on the Executive Summary, and Adam Zajac designed the nerveimPulse logo.

We look forward to hearing your feedback, and to future iterations of nerveimPulse!

Please contact Soha Ashrafi for further information or suggestions at: soha_ashrafi@hms.harvard.edu

Key Findings

The nerveimPulse working group settled on the items below as key observations that emerged from the analysis. These observations are based on a descriptive analysis of the respondent dataset rather than inferential analysis, as the sample size and representation of different groups did not lend itself to thorough statistical analysis. The black line indicated in the figures represent a delineation of “neutral” responses, with “neutral” respondent answers nested around the center line, to help visualize the overall percentage in the positive and negative direction for each question.

1. Of the population who responded to the survey, Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Middle Eastern/North African individuals are poorly represented in the Department across all positions (data not shown to preserve anonymity).

2. Overall, the majority of perceptions on belonging and inclusivity are positive, both across the department and across labs/offices. These perceptions are slightly shifted towards more positive for labs/offices (Figure 2b, Figure 4). However, when responses are broken down by racial / ethnic background, we observe that members of underrepresented groups report a lower sense of inclusion and belonging in the lab and in the Department (Figure 16).

3. Respondents across different Department roles report agreement in feelings of belonging and inclusion, but agree less with the department actually being racially diverse (Figure 3, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Additionally, White/Asian respondents tend to perceive the Department as racially diverse, whereas UiM respondents do not report this perception (Figure 18).

4. Research Assistants (RAs)/Technicians report particularly low levels of inclusion in the Department compared to their home lab, and higher prevalence of encounters that made them feel their contributions are not valued (Figure 4 and Figure 8). Across all roles, RAs and Technicians also report having the fewest discussions about diversity and inclusion, both at the department and lab levels (Figure 5).

5. Gender identity, sexual orientation and race/ethnicity are major factors in sentiments of belonging and inclusion (Figure 9-20 and Tables). In addition, individuals who belong to a minority demographic are more likely to have experienced interactions that led them to question the value of their contributions (some examples can be found in Figures 14 and 20).

6. In Figure 27, we noted that 44% of respondents believe that “providing space to share experiences” is an urgent priority for DCDI.

7. In the Free Response section, we noted a repeated mention of financial concerns, and need for more community events. Out of an abundance of care with respect to protecting identity of respondents, we will not publish the responses, and instead generated a word cloud to indicate trends in free responses (Figures 28 and 29).

Findings enabled by nerveimPulse

We note below a few findings enabled by nerveimPulse:

1. Of those who responded, RAs in the Department report lower levels of inclusion and belonging at the Department level.

2. It was encouraging to see that discussions around DEI occurred around Department laboratories, and not just at the Departmental level.

3. Reports of inclusion and belonging differ when considering Department v. laboratory culture, and the racial/ethnic background of respondents.

4. Respondents specifically ranked “Providing space to share experiences” as a higher priority than “community events designed to create/improve casual interactions with mentors/peers”.

Actionable Next Steps

Based on our key findings, DCDI has begun implementing the following actions:

● DCDI will create dedicated programming for RAs and technicians. The goal of this programming will be to build a community of RAs/technicians within the Department to provide professional development opportunities, as well as more structure to seek advice/help to maximize their experience during this critical career stage.

● It was encouraging to see that discussions centered around DEI are happening in the Department and within individual lab/core/units. Importantly, we want to encourage members of the Department to continue these critical conversations beyond this moment in time. To this end, DCDI is currently in the process of developing ‘Empowerment Packages’, a series of journal club materials to encourage dedicated meetings centered around topics of DEI.

● Events such as Friday Pizza Talks and Beer Hours are critical to fostering interactions that can help develop scientific collaborations and ideas as well as create a sense of community and inclusion. However, we observed a trend in our dataset indicating that the level of attendance of Departmental events differs when comparing racial/ethnic background and gender identity of those who responded (Figure 23). The lower turnout of certain populations of the Department could stem from various reasons. In order to encourage attendance and better understand the lack of engagement we will perform additional outreach within the community . For example, asking various groups within our community to host Beer Hours or to select Neuroscience Seminar Series speakers. We already asked the Women in Neuroscience group and Underrepresented Scholars in Neuroscience group to host events, and will include more groups moving forward.

● We will also continue to offer outreach events regarding resources for Title IX reporting and Ombuds mediation to help educate and build trust within the community to utilize these resources. We will have a postdoctoral fellow-centered event discussing Title IX in January 2022.

● A major goal of the survey was to identify areas where we could have the most impact. In analyzing our survey, we have found that the most pressing need is for more community events that foster sharing of experiences. With support from our DCDI in-Reach subcommittee, we will be sure continue programs such a Listening Labs and other departmental programming.

● Performing a pulse survey is a major undertaking that requires a critical eye to survey questions and design, and given the wealth of data, in future years, we propose requesting support from an external vendor with DEI survey expertise to help us understand the nuances and intricacies of the dataset.

Conclusion

nerveimPulse 2021 provided a critical assessment of where we stand as a Department, and revealed specific insights towards our next steps and priorities. We thank the community for taking the time to pilot the survey, helping construct questions, encouraging others to take the survey, and for responding to the survey. DCDI will hold ourselves to the work suggested by these findings and we will deploy nerveimPulse in future years with the same goals and the hope of increased participation across our department. As described in our mission statement, DCDI is committed to ensuring sustained efforts towards a more inclusive department and we will continue to assess our activities through your response to nerveimPulse.