GoKawiilThe problem Dear Nature, I am an early-career researcher of Asian heritage working in an engineering research group in western Europe. Some laboratory members who grew up in Western Europe, including ones in senior positions, seem to have higher expectations of me and my Asian colleagues than they have of others. We’re expected to perform better academically and we have to follow strict rules to receive the same level of respect as other team members. The general sense is that we should clean the lab more, and achieve more, than others. International lab members are routinely referred to as “a problem”. For instance, when I make a mistake, it’s common to hear someone say that people from my country “don’t understand the rules”. I find that occasional comments such as these have now become normalized. And the people making these comments don’t seem to see the problem. More subtly, informal lab communication, chitchat and support tend to be conducted in the local language, rather than in English, which makes it difficult for international researchers to participate in conversations and access information. I feel separated and distant from those on the team who speak the local language. This has been happening for years; it’s not a few isolated incidents. Inclusion policies exist at the university, but in practice, they are not always followed. Unequal treatment and race-based comments feel like needles. I’ve been experiencing these things for years and it makes me want to leave the lab, and maybe also the country. How should international early-career researchers respond when exclusion and racialized behaviour persist in academic environments? I want to speak up for my community, but what options exist when speaking out feels unsafe, even years into a career? — An international early-career researcher
The advice
“A lot of the negative experiences that come from race-based inequalities are the more subtle forms,” notes Billy Wong, a higher-education researcher at the University of Reading, UK. Wong suggests finding allies as a first priority. “When you look for people who share similar experiences, you create a network of peer support,” he says.
Joelyn de Lima, who advises the Swiss Federal Technology Institute of Lausanne (EPFL) on pedagogy matters, recommends that you and the other people affected start documenting every relevant incident. Log what happens, when, where, who else was present and what impact it had. She adds that it might be worth taking note of whether you are excluded from any research papers or projects, and whether there is a lack of opportunities for researchers of particular nationalities.
Documenting events is helpful because “if at some point you want to escalate”, you have proof of a pattern of behaviour that’s difficult to argue against, de Lima points out. “Data talk. If I show you an established pattern that has occurred across people and across time, that then helps you to make informed decisions in the future,” she adds. A collection of evidence can thus help to deter gaslighting — when someone suggests that you’re being oversensitive or misinterpreting the situation.
Jan Van Maele, a language and communications researcher at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium, also suggests that you try to find some allies in your lab. Some of your colleagues might be able to “challenge instances of race-based comments and speak up against unequal treatment with less risk”.
‘Beyond anything I could have imagined’: graduate students speak out about racism
Van Maele also notes that, often, people who make insensitive comments are unaware of the hurt that they are causing. One way to encourage them to change their behaviour is to talk to them about the effect that their actions are having on you, if you feel comfortable doing so.
De Lima says that a mismatch of expectations could be caused by the ‘model minority’ label — which portrays people from some Asian nations as especially competent and successful. The stereotype persists that “as a culture, you’re supposed to be high performing, so you should be performing more now”. She points out that a sense of “psychological safety” has been shown to improve aspects of group performance1, and that reminding colleagues of this could motivate them to be more kind at work.
De Lima also suggests implementing a code of conduct in the lab. Ideally this would be your principal investigator’s responsibility, but anyone can initiate the creation of one. A code of conduct means that expectations can be set without needing to single out individual team members who have engaged in harmful behaviour and could include clear standards for behaviour, tackling favouritism and any unequal expectations that you’ve identified.
... continue reading