How the race and gender diversity of team members is related to innovative science and technology outcomes is debated in the scholarly literature. Some studies find diversity is linked to creativity and productivity, other studies find that diversity has no effect or even negative effects on team outcomes. Based on a critical review of the literature, this paper explains the seemingly contradictory findings through careful attention to the organizational contexts of team diversity. We distinguish between representational diversity and full integration of minority scientists. Representational diversity, where organizations have workforces that match the pool of degree recipients in relevant fields, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for diversity to yield benefits. Full integration of minority scientists (i.e., including women and people of color) in an interaction context that allows for more level information exchange, unimpeded by the asymmetrical power relationships that are common across many scientific organizations, is when the full potential for diversity to have innovative outcomes is realized. Under conditions of equitable and integrated work environments, diversity leads to creativity, innovation, productivity, and positive reputational (status) effects. Thus, effective policies for diversity in science and engineering must also address integration in the organizational contexts in which diverse teams are embedded.

Failure is a common experience in society, and analyses of failure have been important for developing social theory. This article analyzes how chemical scientists experience failure in both credited and uncredited research collaborations. Credited work produces the outputs that are evaluated by administrators and analyzed by social scientists. Thus, "credit" is closely tied with visibility in science. But chemical scientists often engage in uncredited collaboration as well. Uncredited collaborations are not opportunities to receive formal credit for one's work, but chemical scientists still engage in uncredited work in order to meet the metrics by which they are evaluated. Analyzing 106 interviews with chemical scientists, this article builds a framework for understanding success in collaboration. The two dimensions of this framework that shape experience of success and failure are (1) whether a collaboration produced outputs and (2) whether expectations are met. Collaborative expectations often go unmet, but these disappointments rarely undermine collaborations from producing credited outputs. Novice scientists often have positive experiences in uncredited collaboration despite not receiving credit for their work. Success and failure are experienced differently in credited and uncredited collaboration. Institutional pressures often create circumstances for failure in collaborations while also keeping scientists invested in unsuccessful collaborations.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract