Randomized trial evaluates early impacts of an equity and diversity program in a multidisciplinary research institute, suggesting improvements in inclusivity.
At the Carbon to Metal Coating Institute (C2MCI), globally recognized researchers in chemistry, physics, engineering, and medicine collaborate with industry, government, and not-for-profit partners to address challenges in metal stability and manipulation. Institute mandates include graduate training and championing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines. An evidence-based framework to support recruitment, scientific training, and professional development of equity deserving groups (EDGs) has been established. Through EDI learning modules, workshops, podcasts, and fellowships, we address systemic barriers, promote equitable opportunities, and cultivate an inclusive environment where all can thrive. A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted to evaluate early impacts. An online survey (n = 70; response rate 61%) examined team demographics (39% racialized, 51% women, 9% persons with disabilities, 3% Indigenous, and 13% 2SLGBTQI+), program participation (59%; participated in 1-3 initiatives) and satisfaction (80% felt valued irrespective of identity). Semi-structured interviews (n = 11) identified perceived challenges and impacts. Thematic analysis revealed gender, race, gender identity, and financial struggles as key challenges for EDGs. Impacts included the creation of a supportive environment that embraces diversity, promotes privilege self-reflection, learning from the lived experiences of EDGs built allyship, and there was an impression of equitable distribution of opportunities. Persistent diversity gaps found among Black and Indigenous members underscore the need for early STEM outreach. By embedding evaluation into our EDI framework, C2MCI was able to identify strengths, recognize gaps, and implement adjustments to fill gaps. Findings inform programming to strengthen EDI in STEM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albright et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: