Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network

• Published in: Research integrity and peer review Vol. 9; no. 1; p. 5
• Main Authors: Fisher, Oliver J, Fearnshaw, Debra, Watson, Nicholas J, Green, Peter, Charnley, Fiona, McFarlane, Duncan, Sharples, Sarah
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 16.05.2024; BMC
• Subjects: Diversity; Equality; Funding reviewing; Inclusion; Network policy; Research integrity; Inclusion; Network policy; EDI interventions; Diversity; Funding reviewing; Research integrity; Equality
• ISSN: 2058-8615; 2058-8615
• DOI: 10.1186/s41073-024-00144-w

Equal, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities. This study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method. Quantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination. In summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.