If you have worked in a university, research institute or business during the past two decades you will be familiar with the term equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). There is likely to be an EDI strategy that includes measures and targets to nurture a workforce that looks more like the wider population and a culture in which everyone can thrive. You may find a reasoned business case for EDI, which extends beyond the organization’s legal obligations, to reflect and understand the people that you work with.
Look more closely and it is possible that the “E” in EDI is not actually equality, but rather equity. Equity is increasingly being used as a more active commitment, not least by the Institute of Physics, which publishes Physics World. How, though, is equity different to equality? What is causing this change of language and will it make any difference in practice?
The distinction between equality and equity is often illustrated by a cartoon published in 2016 by the UK artist Angus Maguire (above). It shows a fence and people of variable height gaining an equal view of a baseball match thanks to different numbers of crates that they stand on. This has itself, however, resulted in arguments about other factors such as the conditions necessary to watch the game in the stadium, or indeed even join in. That requires consideration about how the teams and the stadium could adapt to the needs of all potential participants, but also how these changes might affect the experience of others involved.
In terms of education, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states that equity “does not mean that all students obtain equal education outcomes, but rather that differences in students’ outcomes are unrelated to their background or to economic and social circumstances over which the students have no control”. This is an admirable goal, but there are questions about how to achieve it.
In OECD member countries, freedom of choice and competition yield social inequalities that flow through to education and careers. This means that governments are continually balancing the benefits of inspiring and rewarding individuals alongside concerns about group injustice. Indeed, discussions around equality and equity have become entwined in the culture wars, both in the UK and the US, and Donald Trump’s second term as US president may compound this.
In 2024, we hosted a multidisciplinary workshop about equity in science, and especially physics. Held at the University of Birmingham, it brought together physicists at different career stages with social scientists and people who had worked on science and education in government, charities and learned societies. At the event, social scientists told us that equality is commonly conceived as a basic right to be treated equally and not discriminated against, regardless of personal characteristics. This right provides a platform for “equality of opportunity” whereby barriers are removed so talent and effort can be rewarded.
In the UK, the promotion of equality of opportunity is enshrined within the country’s Equality Act 2010 and underpins current EDI work in physics. This includes measures to promote physics to young people in deprived areas, and to women and ethnic minorities, as well as mentoring and additional academic and financial support through all stages of education and careers. It extends to re-shaping the content and promotion of physics courses in universities so they are more appealing and responsive to a wider constituency. In many organizations, there is also training for managers to combat discrimination and bias, whether conscious or not.
Actions like these have helped to improve participation and progression across physics education and careers, but there is still significant underrepresentation and marginalization due to gender, ethnicity and social background. This is not unusual in open and competitive societies where the effects of promoting equal opportunities are often outweighed by the resources and connections of people with characteristics that are highly represented. Talent and effort are crucial in “high-performance” sectors such as academia and industry, but they are not the only factors influencing success.
Physicists at the meeting told us that they are motivated by intellectual curiosity, fascination with the natural world and love for their subject. Yet there is also, in physics, a culture of “genius” and competition, in which confidence is crucial. Facilities and working conditions, which often involve short-term contracts and international mobility, are difficult to balance alongside other life commitments. Although inequalities and exclusions are recognized, they are often ascribed to broader social factors or the inherent requirements of research. As a result, physicists tend not to accept responsibility for inequities within the discipline.
Physics has a culture of “hyper-meritocracy” where being correct counts more than respecting others
Many physicists want merit to be a reflection of talent and effort. But we identified that physics has a culture of “hyper-meritocracy” where being correct counts more than respecting others. Across the community, some believe in positive action beyond the removal of discrimination, but others can be actively hostile to any measure associated with EDI. This is a challenging environment for any young researcher and we heard distressing stories of isolation from women and colleagues who had hidden disabilities or those who were the first in their family to go to university.
The experience, positive or not, when joining a research group as a postgraduate or postdoctoral researcher is often linked with the personality of leaders. Peer groups and networks have helped many physicists through this period of their career, but it is also where the culture in a research group or department can drive some to the margins and ultimately out of the profession. In environments like this, equal opportunities have proved insufficient to advance diversity, let alone inclusion.
Culture change
Organizations that have replaced equality with equity want to signal a commitment not just to equal treatment, but also more equitable outcomes. However, those who have worked in government told us that some people become disengaged, thinking such efforts can only be achieved by reducing standards and threatening cultures they value. Given that physics needs technical proficiency and associated resources and infrastructure, it is not a discipline where equity can mean an equal distribution of positions and resources.
Physics can, though, counter the influence of wider inequalities by helping colleagues who are under-represented to gain the attributes, experiences and connections that are needed to compete successfully for doctoral studentships, research contracts and academic positions. It can also face up to its cultural problems, so colleagues who are minoritized feel less marginalized and they are ultimately recognized for their efforts and contributions.
This will require physicists giving more prominence to marginalized voices as well as critically and honestly examining their culture and tackling unacceptable behaviour. We believe we can achieve this by collaborating with our social science colleagues. That includes gathering and interpreting qualitative data, so there is shared understanding of problems, as well as designing strategies with people who are most affected, so that everyone has a stake in success.
If this happens, we can look forward to a physics community that genuinely practices equity, rather than espousing equality of opportunity.
- This article was based on conference contributions from Saher Ahmed, Clara Barker, Fern Elsdon-Baker, Diane Grayson, Pauline Leonard, Kimberley Scott, David Sweeney and Marika Taylor.
The post What ‘equity’ really means for physics appeared first on Physics World.
