Laying the Groundwork to Investigate Diversity of Life Sciences Reading Lists in Higher Education and Its Link to Awarding Gaps

Five questions on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in UK bioscience research or "How can UK bioscience be changed so that those from marginalised groups can thrive?"

Diversity, equity, and inclusion play pivotal roles in advancing science and innovation by fostering a rich and supportive environment that benefits both individuals and society. UK bioscience research units are still on a journey towards being inclusive, and existing research on effecting changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion has yet to make an impact at the scale needed to transform the sector, leaving many to wonder How can UK bioscience be changed so that those from marginalised groups can thrive? This paper considers some of the questions that arise in addressing this, discusses what we already know and what we do not, and in doing so outlines a research agenda that aims to find out what works to effect diversity, equity and inclusion in UK bioscience.

A novel data solution to inform curriculum decolonisation: the case of the Imperial College London Masters of Public Health

There is increasing interest within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to examine curricula for legacies of colonialism or empire that might result in a preponderance of references to research from the global north. Prior attempts to study reading lists for author geographies have employed resource-intensive audit and data collection methods based on manual searching and tagging individual reading list items by characteristics such as author country or place of publication. However, these manual methods are impractical for large reading lists with hundreds of citations that change over instances the course is taught. Laborious manual methods may explain why there is a lack of quantitative evidence to inform this debate and the understanding of geographic distribution of curricula. We describe a novel computational method applied to 568 articles, representing 3166 authors from the Imperial College London Masters in Public Health programme over two time periods (2017–18 and 2019–20). Described with summary statistics, we found a marginal shift away from global north-affiliated authors on the reading lists of one Masters course over two time periods and contextualise the role and limitations of the use of quantitative data in the decolonisation discourse. The method provides opportunities for educators to examine the distribution of course readings at pace and over time, serving as a useful point of departure to engage in decolonisation debates.