Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.

Climate change is a global threat that poses significant risks to pregnant women and to their developing fetus and newborn. Educating pregnant women about the risks to their pregnancy may improve maternal and child health outcomes. Prior research suggests that presenting health information in narrative format can be more effective than a didactic format. Hence, the purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of two brief educational interventions in a diverse group of pregnant women (n = 151). Specifically, using a post-test only randomized experiment, we compared the effectiveness of brief information presented in a narrative format versus a didactic format; both information formats were also compared to a no information control group. Outcome measures included pregnant women’s actual and perceived knowledge, risk perception, affective assessment, self-efficacy, intention to take protective behaviors, and subsequent information seeking behavior. As hypothesized, for all outcome measures, the narrative format was more effective than the didactic format. These results suggest the benefits of a narrative approach (versus a didactic approach) to educating pregnant women about the maternal and child health threats posed by climate change. This study adds to a growing literature on the effectiveness of narrative-based approaches to health communication.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, those involved with the criminal legal system experience disproportionate vulnerability to infection, transmission, and mortality, facing additional systemic barriers due to criminal legal involvement (CLI) (e.g., prior incarcerations or probationary status affecting employability or housing security). We use Weick’s (1979) model of sensemaking as a theoretical framework to inform our examination of CLI individuals’ experiences during the pandemic. The primary objective of this paper is to explore the process of sensemaking amid misinformation, trust/mistrust, and vulnerability during the pandemic among CLI communities in three central states (Illinois, Louisiana, and Arkansas). We conducted seven online focus groups (n = 44), between December 2020 and January 2021, from the targeted communities about their awareness of misinformation, trusted or distrusted sources, attitudes about COVID-19 health behaviors (including testing, protective behaviors such as mask-wearing and social distancing, and vaccination), and experiences with the criminal legal system during the pandemic. The concept of equivocality was at the core of the narratives shared among participants, with uncertainty emerging as a meta-theme across all focus groups. The findings of this study should prove useful for those who are developing messaging to combat mis/disinformation and overcome mis/distrust with the medical system and government institutions among those who are disenfranchised.

Background: The U.S. monkeypox (mpox) outbreak of 2022 was a unique emergent public health crisis disproportionately affecting Black sexual minority men (BSMM). Similar to other stigmas, mpox-related stigma may have adverse effects on BSMM, including deterring HIV prevention such as PrEP. Methods: Our study investigated the experiences and perceptions of BSMM related to mpox, including mpox-associated stigma, and PrEP engagement among BSMM. We conducted qualitative interviews of 24 BSMM attending HIV prevention-related events in the greater D.C. Metropolitan area. In-depth interviews were conducted via phone, and responses to questions specific to the mpox outbreak were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We identified three key themes from the analysis: Mpox-related stigma, Mpox vaccine availability concerns, and Mpox vaccine hesitancy. Participants also described relationships between each of these three themes and PrEP use. Mpox stigma was particularly relevant as it is related to sexual stigma and is a deterrent to PrEP use. A sense of health system neglect of BSMM, especially related to low mpox vaccine availability, was also described. Conclusions: We identified mpox stigma and challenges related to mpox vaccination as key themes among BSMM, with implications for PrEP use. Future research exploring medical mistrust among BSMM, particularly related to HIV prevention, is recommended.

The purpose of this study was to assess the degree to which sheltered versus unsheltered contexts of introductory communication courses impact communication skill development and overall learning outcomes for international students. Specifically, this study examined the following outcome variables: public speaking anxiety, engagement, communication mindset, communication efficacy, and student performance to investigate whether it is beneficial to sheltered international students in introductory courses. Results showed that there was no significant difference between groups for the public speaking anxiety, student engagement, or overall course performance, except for the final group presentation performance. However, there was a significant interaction effect for communication mindset and communication efficacy; students in sheltered sections saw increases in these outcomes over the course of the semester, while unsheltered students experienced the opposite.