CLEAR has eighteen members. Dr. Max Liboiron directs (non-tenured, woman). Dr. Charles Mather facilitates (tenured, man). We have one male PhD student, four female master’s students, and eleven undergraduates, ten of whom are women. We have one male staff member. We are one Indigenous woman, and a whole lot of white people. We have a bunch of queers, but we’ve never actually counted. Our members have had negative experiences in other labs: we have been mistaken for assistants rather than Primary Investigators (PIs); have had names moved down lists of author order without discussion; are constantly spoken over and interrupted by senior and male colleagues; have experienced data and grant theft by advisors; have been told we are expected to work long hours without any credit since we do not make intellectual contributions to projects; are expected to prioritize our work over all other personal and professional goals and obligations; and have been represented in media interviews as “girly” and silly instead of intelligent. This is why we believe that simply bringing more women and people of color into science— equality—while maintaining the status quo only perpetuates the violence experienced. It is also why we seek to give our lab members authorship credit.
For decades, feminist STS scholars have articulated how power circulates through science, differentially impacting people depending on their social location (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2001). Social location—the groups people belong to because of their place or position in history and society, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and educational status—influences not just how people encounter science (determining their wages, likelihood of receiving tenure, awards, etc.) but also how science is produced (influencing the values embedded within their research, the questions they choose to ask, methods they use and more) (Tallbear, 2015; Whyte, in press). For these reasons, we consider social location when awarding author order.
Some of the aspects of social position we’ve considered include:
* Whether the author is an academic; the value of order to a non-academic will be different than an academic. It is important to consider non-academics as full collaborators and value them as such via authorship and involvement in the consensus process.
* Affiliation; which affiliations do we want to highlight, and why? We may want to promote new, unsung, non-profit, or underfunded organizations and universities.
* Who needs the cultural capital most? Is anyone going on the job market, going up for tenure, or applying for graduate school?
* For whom is authorship a unique opportunity? Publishing opportunities for faculty and graduate students can be numerous, while for others (such as undergraduate students) publishing may be a unique opportunity to be recognized.
* Hierarchical status; often undergraduate and technician work is not valued as much as graduate or faculty work, even where the same labor is performed.
* Payment status; are some members being paid wages or stipends for the work, while others are not? Are they paid the same amounts or the same way?
* Number of publications authors already have; the publication may mean more to someone who has fewer.
* Direction of member’s research; if a paper fits particularly well with a member’s research trajectory, it may provide more value than if they are working on a different topic.
* The past struggles of some members; some people have already encountered acute setbacks in their careers due to social location.
* Markers of difference: consider gender, race, Indigeneity, age, disability, and other markers of difference and privilege. How can we address severe underrepresentation of certain demographics in STEM right here, right now?
CLEAR has eighteen members. Dr. Max Liboiron directs (non-tenured, woman). Dr. Charles Mather facilitates (tenured, man). We have one male PhD student, four female master’s students, and eleven undergraduates, ten of whom are women. We have one male staff member. We are one Indigenous woman, and a whole lot of white people. We have a bunch of queers, but we’ve never actually counted. Our members have had negative experiences in other labs: we have been mistaken for assistants rather than Primary Investigators (PIs); have had names moved down lists of author order without discussion; are constantly spoken over and interrupted by senior and male colleagues; have experienced data and grant theft by advisors; have been told we are expected to work long hours without any credit since we do not make intellectual contributions to projects; are expected to prioritize our work over all other personal and professional goals and obligations; and have been represented in media interviews as “girly” and silly instead of intelligent. This is why we believe that simply bringing more women and people of color into science— equality—while maintaining the status quo only perpetuates the violence experienced. It is also why we seek to give our lab members authorship credit.
For decades, feminist STS scholars have articulated how power circulates through science, differentially impacting people depending on their social location (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2001). Social location—the groups people belong to because of their place or position in history and society, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and educational status—influences not just how people encounter science (determining their wages, likelihood of receiving tenure, awards, etc.) but also how science is produced (influencing the values embedded within their research, the questions they choose to ask, methods they use and more) (Tallbear, 2015; Whyte, in press). For these reasons, we consider social location when awarding author order.
Some of the aspects of social position we’ve considered include:
* Whether the author is an academic; the value of order to a non-academic will be different than an academic. It is important to consider non-academics as full collaborators and value them as such via authorship and involvement in the consensus process. * Affiliation; which affiliations do we want to highlight, and why? We may want to promote new, unsung, non-profit, or underfunded organizations and universities. * Who needs the cultural capital most? Is anyone going on the job market, going up for tenure, or applying for graduate school? * For whom is authorship a unique opportunity? Publishing opportunities for faculty and graduate students can be numerous, while for others (such as undergraduate students) publishing may be a unique opportunity to be recognized. * Hierarchical status; often undergraduate and technician work is not valued as much as graduate or faculty work, even where the same labor is performed. * Payment status; are some members being paid wages or stipends for the work, while others are not? Are they paid the same amounts or the same way? * Number of publications authors already have; the publication may mean more to someone who has fewer. * Direction of member’s research; if a paper fits particularly well with a member’s research trajectory, it may provide more value than if they are working on a different topic. * The past struggles of some members; some people have already encountered acute setbacks in their careers due to social location. * Markers of difference: consider gender, race, Indigeneity, age, disability, and other markers of difference and privilege. How can we address severe underrepresentation of certain demographics in STEM right here, right now?
Next: A Snapshot of the Process
Top: Equity in Author Order and Laboratory Life