Educational opportunities for investigators and staff to promote inclusive research practices are a critical piece of the effort to increase diversity in study participation and promote health equity. However, few trainings to date have empirically been shown to result in behavior changes. We present preliminary evaluation findings for the Just Research workshop offered at the University of Wisconsin–Madison between October 2022 and August 2023. These sessions included 80 participants who made up 4 cohorts. Data was collected through a retrospective pre/post-test survey administered 0–7 days following the workshop (n = 70), and a follow-up survey administered 9–12 months following the workshop (n = 21). Participants demonstrate significant increases in knowledge and self-efficacy regarding implementing inclusive practices post-intervention (p < .001). 85.7% of participants who completed the follow-up survey reported implementing inclusive practices.

Environmental data science (EDS) is a nascent STEM sub-discipline where we have the opportunity to shape the culture, to work to create an environment that welcomes broad participation, and to build a culture of inclusivity. Like many STEM disciplines, some may be excluded from participating in EDS due to historical legacies, systemic barriers, and social prejudices that create unequal opportunities and access. To better understand barriers to participation, and to identify solutions and priorities, we conducted a survey of the participants of the first Environmental Data Science Summit. We identified three barriers to participation that matched with three solutions and priorities for the field. The most commonly identified barrier was an unsupportive work environment for minorities and a male-dominated culture; creating a supportive community and work environment, particularly for minorities, was identified as both a solution and a priority for broadening participation in EDS. The second most commonly identified barrier pertained to training and maintaining relevance— specifically, late or informal training experiences and time constraints limiting time to upskill. The solution and priority proposed included access to good mentors and teachers, open data and educational materials, and increased applicability of projects. Finally, the third most commonly identified barrier, solution, and priority relate to financial concerns and the funding landscape, with both the solution and priority identified as improving funding and salary conditions. The results of this study identify the key barrier to participation in EDS and highlight potential solutions to lower these barriers to build a more equitable future.

Improving community attitudes and behaviours is core to improving inclusion for people with disability. To identify ways to achieve such change, we analysed data from qualitative interviews with sixty-one expert stakeholders in Australia, informed by our preceding literature review on effective interventions. We identified five themes describing factors with the potential to change attitudes and behaviours to improve inclusion and reduce discrimination: ensuring people with disability have active presence across all life domains; leadership by people with disability, together with organisational and governmental leadership that values the diverse contribution of people with disability; a holistic approach to policy and interventions that targets multiple levels of change; long-term and adequately resourced initiatives to achieve structural and sustained change; and commitment to measuring and monitoring change interventions, to inform decisions and maintain accountability.

In recent years, there has been an alarming increase in both proposed and enacted legislation that targets diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within higher education and organizations. These laws aim to dismantle protections and support for vulnerable individuals and groups. In this focal article, we provide an overview of the motives driving these anti-DEI legislative initiatives and categorize the laws based on the type of restrictions they impose: (a) reduction in knowledge, (b) reduction in access, and (c) reduction in support. Next, we discuss the consequences these anti-DEI laws yield for individuals, organizations, and society at large and provide an overview of how individuals and organizations may counteract these regressive policies. Last, we conclude with a call to action for I-O psychologists to investigate and call attention to the consequences of anti-DEI laws for recruitment and selection, well-being and safety of minoritized individuals, organizational reputation, and organizational performance and profits.

As organizations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of selecting inclusive leaders, this paper proposes measuring inclusive leadership proficiency as an assessment center (AC) dimension. We propose that ACs present a novel way to effectively assess inclusive leadership using interpersonal behavioral simulation exercises, such as role plays. It is argued that AC-measured inclusive leadership can provide incremental prediction of leader performance beyond commonly assessed AC dimensions; and that it positively predicts follower performance and follower demographic diversity. We conclude by suggesting ways future research might empirically investigate the validity and reliability of AC-measured inclusive leadership in organizational settings.

One of the four core humanitarian principles, impartiality's substantive ethical and deeply operational nature directs aid agencies to seek and deliver aid on the basis of non-discrimination and in proportion to the needs of crisis-affected people. Designed to operationalize the principle of humanity, impartiality is challenged by a plethora of external factors, such as the instrumentalization of aid, bureaucratic restriction, obstruction by States or non-State armed groups, and insecurity. Less visible and less examined are factors internal to aid agencies or the sector as a whole. Based on a desk review of the literature and the authors’ experience working with Médecins Sans Frontières, this article explores shortcomings in how the humanitarian sector understands and operationalizes impartiality, placing the focus on these internal factors.

Beginning with the definition of impartiality, the article focuses on inadequacies in the practice of impartiality's twin pillars: non-discrimination and proportionality in the delivery of aid. Key conclusions include the necessity of an active rather than passive approach to non-discrimination, and the need for greater commitment to proportionality. In extending this analysis, the article looks more deeply at how aid organizations approach the humanitarian principles, identifying shortcomings in the way that the sector operationalizes, engages with and evaluates those principles. Given the sector's limited inclusion of or accountability towards people in crisis, its exercise of impartiality seems particularly problematic in relation to its power to decide the who and what of aid delivery, and to define the needs which it will consider humanitarian.

The objective of this article is to reset humanitarians’ conceptual and operational understanding of impartiality in order to better reflect and protect humanity in humanitarian praxis, and to help humanitarians navigate the emergent challenges and critical discussions on humanitarian action's position in respect to climate change, triple-nexus programming, or simply a future where staggering levels of urgent needs vastly outstrip humanitarian resources.

Chaque année, les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC) subventionnent le Programme d’été sur le vieillissement (PEV). Cette année, la semaine de formation qui rassemblait des étudiants canadiens de tous les cycles supérieurs avait pour thème la recherche multidisciplinaire au quatrième âge. Cette note de recherche présente trois éléments de réflexion de deux participants de l’édition 2023 du PEV : 1) les enjeux liés au vieillissement sont des occasions de transformer les paradigmes de la recherche; 2) la recherche collaborative doit être sociétale, et s’étendre au-delà du cercle restreint des milieux universitaires; 3) les critères d’équité, de diversité et d’inclusion intégrés aux projets de recherche doivent se refléter au sein des organisations qui mènent la recherche.

Evidence consistently shows that the benefits Nature-based Solutions generate are determined by several individual characteristics such as gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity and disability. As a result, Nature-based Solutions can perpetuate existing inequalities and even create new inequalities partly because diverse minority and marginalized people are underrepresented in the process of designing and implementing Nature-based Solutions. Therefore, some Nature-based Solutions scholars have highlighted the necessity to actively involve diverse minority and marginalized groups into the co-creation processes of Nature-based Solutions and to investigate who benefits from the Nature-based Solution and why. Within the GoGreenRoutes H2020 project a transdisciplinary gender, inclusion and diversity panel was established in order to map existing challenges within the consortium. Concordantly, relevant scientific resources and policy documents were identified. Both were blended during consensus meetings in order to develop a common understanding leading to a theoretical gender, inclusion and diversity framework. This framework consists of five domains: (1) gender equality; (2) LGBTQI + rights; (3) social, cultural and ethnic background; (4) people with disabilities; (5) integration of refugees and immigrants; and (6) intergenerational perspectives. Further, the framework was operationalized through the development of a checklist for researchers and practitioners.