The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Abstract

Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.

Racial and ethnic imbalance in neuroscience reference lists and intersections with gender

“…Moreover, prior work clearly demonstrates that greater representation cannot be assumed to reduce discrimination (21). Hence, the efforts to physically diversify the bodies we place in university offices must be complemented by efforts to mentally diversify the ideas and idea-makers that we engage with, cite, and place before our students in colloquia, syllabi, hallway portraiture, et cetera (71, 72). Diverse ideas are the life blood of science; they are the steps we take to optimally forage in the vast space of the unknown.…”

Diversity in science: next steps for research group leaders

“…And students of colour face further challenges when they are admitted to graduate programmes. For example, PhD students from under-represented groups in the United States have been found to produce scientific innovations at higher rates than do those in majority groups, yet their work is devalued, discounted and less likely to earn them academic positions 4 . And between 2000 and 2006, awards from the US National Institutes of Health were granted significantly less often to Black scientists than to members of any other ethnic group 5 (see 'Diversity in NIH awards').…”

Ten simple rules for building an antiracist lab

“…A flexible research agenda that accommodates intellectual perspectives outside of the prevailing conversations in one's field could not only help diversify the lab but also lead to more innovative science. URM scholars produce higher rates of scientific novelty but are also more likely to have their novel contributions discounted and not incorporated into dominant paradigms [30]. PIs, by cultivating dynamic research agendas, can amplify and champion out-of-the-box, innovative contributions from BIPOC scholars.…”