Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: Making conferences in the plant sciences more inclusive through community recommendations
- ROOT & SHOOT Research Coordination Network, United States
- American Society of Plant Biologists, United States
- Folsom Lake College, United States
- Chicago Botanic Garden, United States
- Northwestern University, United States
- University of Washington, United States
- University of Minnesota, United States
- Geneshifters, United States
- Pennsylvania State University, United States
- Untangled Resolutions, United States
- Botanical Society of America (BSA), United States
- Alchemy Psychology Colectivo Inc, United States
- AgBioData Consortium and Phoenix Bioinformatics, United States
- Wisconsin State Herbarium, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
- Indiana University Bloomington, United States
- Oklahoma State University, United States
- Cornell University, United States
- University of Missouri, United States
- University of Tennessee, United States
- Botanical Research Institute of Texas, United States
- North American Arabidopsis Steering Committee, United States
- Oregon State University, United States
- University of California, Merced, United States
- University of Helsinki, Finland
- University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, United States
- Plant biologist, United States
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
- University of California, Davis, United States
Abstract
An unwelcoming climate and culture at scientific conferences is an obstacle to retaining scientists with marginalized identities. Here we describe how a number of professional societies in the plant sciences, mostly based in the United States, collaborated on a project called ROOT & SHOOT (short for Rooting Out Oppression Together and SHaring Our Outcomes Transparently) to make conferences in the field more inclusive. The guidelines we developed, and our efforts to implement them in 2023 and 2024, are summarized here to assist other conference organizers with creating more inclusive conferences.
Introduction
Conferences are an integral part of scientific communication, serving as a vital platform for fostering collaboration, networking opportunities, and showcasing innovations and advances in the field (Leochico et al., 2021; Joo et al., 2022). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that these opportunities are often not equally accessible or inclusive for all members of the scientific community. Issues stemming from white supremacy and cis-hetero-normativity, inaccessible facilities, unwelcoming environments, and biases in speaker invitations are among the factors perpetuating inequities within our professional meeting spaces (Jack-Scott, 2023). These inequities manifest in both explicit and implicit conference practices. Although the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce in the United States has diversified in the last decade to include an increased representation of women and underrepresented minorities (NCSES, 2024), there is still much work to be done towards the goal of creating safe, inclusive working spaces for all.
In February 2021, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released a Dear Colleague Letter: LEAding cultural change through Professional Societies (LEAPS) of Biology. Its goal was to solicit proposals from professional societies “to develop collaborative networks for facilitating cultural changes in the biological sciences to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion” (NSF, 2021). A group of several plant science professional societies and organizations collaboratively wrote and submitted a proposal for a Research Coordination Network called ROOT & SHOOT (Rooting Out Oppression & Sharing Our Outcomes Transparently), which was funded later in 2021. The societies involved were the American Society of Plant Biologists, the American Society of Plant Taxonomists, the American Phytopathological Society, the Botanical Society of America, the International Society for Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, Maize Genetics Corporation, and the North American Arabidopsis Steering Committee (see Table 1). The proposal set out an ambitious set of objectives, including a commitment to work towards safer and more inclusive conferences. Hostile cultures persist in research and academic settings, and conferences can be particularly risky places (Berhe et al., 2022). Although ROOT & SHOOT acknowledges that its organization’s membership may have an international component, the objectives are considered through a USA-centered perspective.
Table 1
Information on six of the societies that were involved in the Root and Shoot project.
The ASPT and the BSA co-host their annual conferences, so the figures for attendance are the same.
| Name | Acronym | Total membership (2024) | Conference cadence | Attendance at last conference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Society of Plant Biologists | ASPB | 2384 | Annual | 1417 |
| American Society of Plant Taxonomists | ASPT | NA | Annual | 852 |
| Botanical Society of America | BSA | 3126 | Annual | 852 |
| International Society for Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions | IS-MPMI | 3801 | Every other year | 1133 |
| Maize Genetics Corporation | MGC | 477 | Annual | 441 |
| North American Arabidopsis Steering Committee | NAASC | 450 | Annual | 540 |
A central feature of the ROOT & SHOOT efforts to improve inclusivity is the formation of working groups to tackle specific issues. This approach aligns with the project goals of valuing and incorporating the perspectives and ideas of plant scientists from communities that are underrepresented and historically excluded from science. Here, we report on the formation of the ROOT & SHOOT Inclusive Conference Working Group, its recommendations, and the results of our initial efforts to implement them. We currently have a second working group underway, focused on culturally responsible mentorship, and are currently developing a seven-week course that is being prepared for beta testing.
Working groups
The working group approach has several advantages: the scope of the task can be focused and accomplished within a defined time frame; it harnesses the knowledge and energy of community members with relevant expertise and interest; and it incorporates a consensus-trust decision-making approach (Dong et al., 2021; Gai et al., 2023). The working group process also makes it possible to recruit members who do not belong to traditional power structures, such as early-career scholars who are unlikely to have yet obtained a leadership position in a professional society but may have previously unheard views (Smith and Turner, 2015; Bialik and Fry, 2019; Robbins et al., 2022). In the long term, a working group process fosters a more inclusive future by developing a robust network of diversity, equity, and inclusion advocates across disciplines in the plant sciences, and by enabling participants to gain valuable leadership and consensus-building experience.
Participant selection
To correct past injustices and better represent the diversity within our organizations, representatives from ROOT & SHOOT deliberately aimed to recruit a diverse group of volunteers from the participating societies by using an open call. Early-career researchers were considered essential contributors to the working group process. Therefore, instead of standard application inputs (e.g., CV, research experience), applicants were asked for responses to free-form questions seeking to understand their motivation and life experiences that could be relevant to the desired outcomes. This application was shared with all the members of the participating societies, the ROOT & SHOOT mailing list, and social media. To help facilitators achieve a representative set of participants, optional questions seeking demographic information were also part of the application. Although it was not a requirement, most (17 of 24) of the Working Group participants had previous conference-organizing experience. These experiences ranged from organizing informal networking events and smaller workshops to professionally planning and hosting several in-person and virtual conferences with thousands of attendees. The final makeup of the Working Group is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Inclusive Conference Working Group: demographic information.
Membership of the Working Group broken down by gender identity (top left), ability status (top right), race/ethnicity (bottom left), and career stage (bottom right).
We informed potential participants that the commitment would span one year, with a goal of completing the task in time for 2023 conferences, and that participants would need to dedicate six hours per month for the first six months. These hours were divided as follows: a one-hour monthly group discussion, with remaining hours spent on additional pre- and post-discussion reading, one to two subgroup meetings per month for specific tasks, and time for writing, editing, and communicating. In the second half of the year we expected the focus would shift to generating a final report for the plant science community and estimated the time commitment could be reduced to two to three hours per month (Figure 2). To compensate volunteers for their efforts, stipends were offered to participants. Some Working Group members chose to waive their stipends.
Figure 2
Timeline of the Working Group.
The Inclusive Conferences Working Group ran from July 2022 until April 2023. The report containing the group’s recommendations underwent three rounds of review: (i) internal review by the subgroups of the Working Group (November 2022); a strategic assessment by the ROOT & SHOOT steering committee, which contained at least one representative from each society (December 2022); (iii) a final evaluation by representatives from all seven participating societies, (January 2023).
The process of guideline development
The Inclusive Conference Working Group was divided into five subgroups. Each subgroup independently developed a meeting style and approach to address one of the following:
A community agreement for conferences and participants outlining principles and standards that support equity and inclusiveness
A reporting structure that ensures accountability and compliance with the Community Agreement
Recommendations for a transparent site selection process that incorporates considerations regarding safety and inclusion of all potential attendees
Guidelines for practices that improve conference accessibility, including for those with disabilities and young families
Guidelines for inclusive speaker selection and equitable programming
Recommendations for inclusive conferences
The final outcome of the process was a comprehensive set of recommendations to guide conference organizers in their planning. The recommendations include suggested language for community guidelines, guidance for reporting structures, advice for site selection and accessibility, and strategies for equitable programming and speaker selection. The guide, including the full Community Agreement, is available in both a long form (Supplementary file 1) and a short form (Supplementary file 2), and the key points are highlighted in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of the major recommendations in the five areas addressed by the Inclusive Conference Working Group, based on a survey of the ASPB, BSA, IS-MPMI, MGC and NAASC.
Recommendations in place before 2023 are indicated by an open circle (one per conference), and those implemented in 2023 or later by a filled circle. See Supplementary files 1 and 2 for more information.
| 1. Community agreement | 4. Conference accessibility | 5. Inclusive speaker selection and equitable programming |
| Create and share an aspirational community conference agreement ○○● | Provide low-cost options for accommodation and registration ○○○○ | Make a commitment |
| Should be a collective vision of our values ○● | Have a point person who reports on barriers and arranges accommodations ● |
|
| Set expectations for conduct ○○○○ | Website, presentations, and signage should be accessible ●●● |
|
| Define measures for accountability ○○○ | Ask participants about their accommodation needs in advance ○○○● | Form a diverse organizing committee |
| Be welcoming to parents and children ○○○●● |
| |
| 2. Reporting structure | Provide lactation room, childcare, and family-friendly spaces ○○● |
|
| Provide bystander intervention training ●●●●● | Indicate allergens on food, and provide vegan and vegetarian options ○○○● | Assess equity goals |
| Provide easy, confidential access to a reporting system ○○●● | Provide quiet, fragrant-free spaces ●● |
|
| Provide an independent ombud onsite ●●●●● | Offer social events that don’t include alcohol ○● |
|
| Have a clear system for dealing with transgressions ○○○● | Check and consistently use correct speaker pronouns ● | Broaden the scope of the meeting to provide space for all voices |
| Conduct post-conference surveys ○○○○ | Use diacritical markers (like accents and tildes) appropriately ○ |
|
| Ask about and use correct name pronunciation ○● |
| |
| 3. Transparent site selection | Create an equitable schedule | |
| Provide guidance and transparency for site selection ○● |
| |
| Costs: facilities rental, lodging, transportation ○○○○ |
| |
| Accessibility: are the facilities ADA-compliant and able to provide additional accommodations if needed? ○○○○● |
| |
| Safety: availability of reproductive services ●● |
| |
| Safety: are the streets safe to walk in after dark? ○○○● | Provide necessary accommodations to speakers | |
| Safety: provide information about local LGBTQ +organizations ○●●● |
| |
| Consider convenience: are food options available nearby? ○○○● |
|
Here we briefly summarize the key recommendations made by the Working Group, and reflect on any implementation or outcomes from our conferences.
1. Community agreement
Most conference attendees and society members have been asked to check a box indicating their agreement to abide by a Code of Conduct when registering for the conference. These Codes outline unacceptable behavior (e.g., harassment, intimidation, discriminatory or disruptive behavior) and some of the outcomes that such behaviors might lead to, which include verbal warning, expulsion from the event, and being barred from future events. The Working Group aimed to complement the existing punitive Codes of Conduct with a community agreement that states the shared values of the plant science community and emphasizes the positive behaviors expected of attendees (Box 1). Although there was a generally positive reaction to the tone of these recommendations, none of the conferences have adopted them as described, largely due to a perceived redundancy with current Codes of Conduct and a concern about whether the conference agreement could be enforceable. Nevertheless, at least one of the conferences is currently planning to incorporate some of this language into their existing Code of Conduct.
Proposed text for a community agreement.
The following templates for a statement of community values and a conference participant agreement were developed by the Inclusive Conferences Working Group.
Community values
[CONFERENCE NAME] strives to ensure the full participation, safety, and support of all participants. We work to uphold inclusive and welcoming antiracist and decolonizing practices and values; to center and support queer, trans, non-binary, and gender minority scientists; to provide equitable access for scientists with disabilities; to invite and uplift contributions by scientists of all religions, belief systems, and cultural backgrounds; to elevate the work of researchers in underserved communities and universities; to strive for more equitable access to resources in those communities; and to open doors for those whom science has historically excluded.
Conference participant agreement
As a participant in [CONFERENCE NAME], I agree to do my part in building a welcoming and inclusive conference environment by:
Upholding and holding others accountable to the above-described community values while attending formal events as well as unofficial activities while at the conference.
Critically evaluating implicit biases and reflecting on how they impact our interactions.
Treating others with civility and actively working to avoid, prevent, stop harassment, discrimination, and behavior that is threatening, intolerant, abusive or violent.
Upholding the highest standards of scientific and academic integrity during the conference, recognizing past and present contributors to science, while acknowledging that science can be flawed and historically has harmed marginalized communities.
Evaluating the work of colleagues equitably—with open-minded fairness and respect.
Encouraging and promoting climates where multiple scientific perspectives may be freely expressed and valued.
2. Reporting structure
During community listening sessions, the need was repeatedly raised for a safe space where conference attendees could report disputes related to the Code of Conduct, or community agreement, and receive guidance. A central goal was to have a neutral party available for such reporting. The Working Group proposed that the ROOT & SHOOT grant provide on-site ombudsperson services to the society conferences, and the outcomes of this implementation are described further below. Bystander intervention training was also recommended and implemented as discussed below. Finally, the Working Group recommended that formal processes be established with clear guidelines for addressing reports of interpersonal conflicts and violence, not unlike the clear guidelines that are in place for academic misconduct and available from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). At least one of the member societies has revised its processes to accommodate these recommendations.
The Working Group also recommended a public rating system whereby attendees could rate the accessibility of a conference after attending it: for example, they could score whether lactation rooms and closed captioning during oral presentations were provided. In an effort to measure the incidence of community agreement violations, the Working Group also recommended that a standardized survey be implemented for use both during and after the conference, for reporting incidents and if/how it was addressed. These recommendations were not pursued for implementation by the professional societies, at least in part because organizers feared that such a rating system might preferentially penalize those societies with smaller conference budgets. Furthermore, the lack of clarity regarding details of the cross-society surveying (e.g., who would gather and store data, how the data would be interpreted and communicated back to the societies) raised concerns, and thus, this aspect was not implemented.
3. Transparent site selection
The location of a conference affects participation and attendance in many ways. Many factors contribute to this decision, and the Working Group recommended being as transparent as possible in communicating how the site was selected. Ideally, the conference location is not unduly expensive so that registration costs are reasonable, although subsidies should be available to those who need them. Similarly, lower-cost accommodations should be available and promoted to the registrants. The venue must be accessible to individuals with visual, auditory, or mobility impairments. This information must be provided on the website, and accommodation requests must be honored. The conference should be held in a location that is safe for all (e.g., abortion and reproductive services are available, homosexuality is not illegal, transgender identities are respected) and where international travelers can easily obtain visas to visit. The Working Group developed a document with questions to guide site selection (Supplementary file 3), facilitating a process that ensures consideration of the identified issues and transparency for the community. Several conferences adopted some of these recommendations, particularly with regard to safety (see Table 2).
4. Conference accessibility
The Working Group considered five aspects of accessibility: economic, physical, audio/visual, family, and wellness. Collectively, these recommendations comprise the largest section of the Inclusive Conference Guide (Supplementary file 4), providing ample food for thought for conference organizers. These recommendations note that certain accessibility options (e.g., economic vs physical environment) may be in direct conflict, so a long-term view that balances choices over several years may be necessary. A key message is that conference organizers should strive to ensure that their event is open, accessible, and welcoming to all who wish to participate. Presenters should be provided with information on how to make their remarks accessible (Supplementary file 4), including closed captioning. All gender bathrooms must be available and clearly signposted. Accommodations should be made for people who attend with their children, such as affordable onsite childcare and lactation rooms. With 20% or more of the population being neurodiverse, it is imperative to include dedicated quiet and scent-free spaces. Conferences provide ideal opportunities to educate the community about workspace accommodations. Finally, caterers should provide clearly labeled ingredient lists, including potential allergens, and ensure that inclusive dietary options are available to accommodate a wide range of needs and food restrictions.
5. Inclusive speaker selection and equitable programming
The final section provides concrete steps to ensure a diverse speaker pool across different career stages. We cannot claim that our conferences are inclusive if the presenters do not reflect the diversity of the audience. Conference organizers are encouraged to look beyond the senior authors of the most-cited recent papers if they want to achieve true speaker diversity. Inviting first authors, often early-career researchers and scholars, rather than senior authors, can be beneficial. Additionally, ensuring that the program includes topics that have not been historically represented – such as the role of Indigenous knowledge, science policy, the history of science, and education – can also be helpful. The program committee itself must be diverse, as studies show that diverse organizing committees are more likely to generate diverse speaker lists (Segarra et al., 2020). Being publicly and explicitly clear about a commitment to an inclusive conference increases the likelihood that invited speakers will accept an invitation. An inclusive approach also includes that those introducing speakers use correct pronouns (if provided) and make the effort to pronounce names accurately. Finally, being transparent about the commitment to equitable programming and speaker diversity can help with accountability, as can collecting year-by-year data and reflecting on trends as the organization prepares for the next conference.
Implementing the recommendations
Although the Working Group developed a comprehensive set of recommendations, we recognize that not all have been or can be implemented, and some were already in place. Here, we highlight a few of the efforts that the ROOT & SHOOT project implemented across several conferences organized by the participating societies, along with their outcomes.
Bystander intervention training workshops
From numerous listening sessions and discussions within the larger scientific community, personal safety at conferences emerged as one of the primary concerns of people with historically excluded identities. In order to begin to address this concern and build a more aware and supportive environment, ROOT & SHOOT partnered with the ADVANCEGeo Partnership to host several online bystander intervention training workshops. These workshops were free to attend and provided an early access point for individuals interested in understanding why, when, and how to intervene if observing situations involving mistreatment, harassment, or discrimination.
We have hosted seven training sessions since 2023, with an average attendance of 53 participants per session. As space was limited, organizations prioritized inviting those in leadership positions and session organizers to attend, after which the training was open to all, regardless of career level. Some organizations made attendance a requirement for their session chairs, while others strongly recommended it. These were extensive three-hour sessions, consisting of roughly two hours of training followed by an hour of practice, during which attendees actively practiced responding to problematic scenarios.
The practice portion was particularly well received, so we contracted ADVANCEGeo to hold additional 1.5 hour “scenario-only practice sessions” for those who had already undergone the full training. The length of the full training may have been a deterrent, so organizations that still wanted their members to be trained adapted the content into a shorter training session, and made it a requirement for conference organizers and session chairs to attend (Friesner, 2023). Organizations that did not make the training a requirement incentivized their members to join by providing badge stickers recognizing that they’d attended the training. While we did not conduct formal post-training evaluations, we received anecdotal feedback from members and conference participants who reported feeling more confident about intervening in problematic situations. Several also noted observing session chairs actively implementing the training practices during the conference.
On-site ombudsperson and advocacy services
Another major finding from the Working Group was the need to have an independent, neutral party present at the conference to address personal safety needs and concerns about harassment and discrimination. Most affiliated societies were enthusiastic about engaging in such a service, provided that ROOT & SHOOT bore the cost. Therefore, at five conferences over the course of two years, ROOT & SHOOT paid for a professional ombudsperson and advocacy service.
The conference organizers informed attendees about the service through emails, conference applications, conference websites, and by introducing the ombudsperson/advocate during the opening activity. Attendees were provided with a web form and phone number to reach the on-site service provider, who had access to a private meeting space. When on-site, the services providers were proactive about being visible during the conference, ensuring that attendees were aware of the service and who the providers were.
The ombudsperson and advocacy service was requested and utilized at least once at each conference. On-site service providers could empathize with and guide the individuals who requested help. Equally valuable, they were able to inform conference leadership of issues that would likely have otherwise gone unnoticed while guiding leaders to help resolve issues via non-punitive, community-centered, restorative, and interest-based pathways.
To respect confidentiality, we can provide only general descriptions of the issues that arose. These issues included: helping process intrapersonal struggles that interfered with the individual’s ability to be fully present and enjoy the conference; concerns about identity-based hate speech; sexual harassment; friction within a committee that involved unconscious bias related to identity; accessibility-related concerns; and racially biased material used in oral presentations. Table 3 includes a series of situations that we have observed in our collective experience, along with potential ways to address them.
Table 3
Summary of some challenges that have occurred during scientific conferences, and their proposed responses.
| Category | Example issue | Proposed response |
|---|---|---|
| Presentations | Offensive or stereotypical images, jokes, or language on slides | Speaker guidelines with content review |
| Dismissive tone toward certain demographics during Q&A | Define a response beforehand and train the session chairs to intervene | |
| Accessibility | Lack of captioning or sign language interpreters | Pre-event accessibility survey |
| No accommodations for mobility or sensory needs | Provide multiple modes of participation | |
| Inaccessible venue layout | Visible signage and support at venue | |
| Q&A sessions | Overly aggressive questioning, tone-policing, dismissive or personal attacks on speaker’s competence or identity | Moderator training to set respectful tone |
| Networking events | Exclusion from informal groups, inappropriate jokes, harassment, or alcohol-related misconduct | Ombudsperson or advocacy ambassadors (with bystander training) at social events |
| Poster sessions | Harassment or inappropriate questioning during poster presentations | A clear system for reporting misconduct. Provide advocacy ambassadors with distinctive lanyards (with bystander training) at poster events |
| Social media and online platforms | Live posts or messages targeting individuals in harmful or sarcastic ways | Create and promote moderated hashtags |
| Dogpiling or doxing (involves publicly exposing someone’s private information) | Establish and promote a social media Code of Conduct | |
| General conduct | Violation of Code of Conduct | Clear and visible Code of Conduct |
| Public or private bullying | Advertise and make the ombudsperson role visible. Provide and advertise bystander intervention training | |
| Microaggressions | Consistent follow-up for violations, consider implementing restorative justice methods | |
| Power dynamics | Abuse of power by established figures (inappropriate comments, gatekeeping, retaliation against dissent) | Policy outlining professional boundaries and recourse for abuse. Provide and advertise bystander intervention training |
During the 2023 and 2024 conference seasons, the service providers met with conference leadership and staff via Zoom after each event to share their experience, answer questions, offer feedback to the conference organizers, and provide long-term recommendations for improving future conferences. These recommendations included: to review the presentation materials of major speakers; to have all speakers upload slides for review before the conference; to provide presentation templates that are accessible-friendly; and to have all attendees receive identity-based bias training, as well as bystander intervention training.
While we have limited data on post-conference evaluations from two organizations, most of the feedback we received was informal, and was shared with organizers and the service providers throughout the conference. In one conference, at least five people stopped by the office being used by the service provides to say that they did not need the service, but were glad it was available. The same conference’s evaluations showed that 66% of members were aware that the service was available to them (strongly agree +somewhat agree; n=167), and 63% understood the purpose of the service (strongly agree +somewhat agree; n=170). Some 47% said that having the service was important to them, while 39% were neutral and 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed (n=165). In another conference, evaluations showed that 35% considered the service to be of “high value” (between 8 and 10 on a scale of 1–10; n=191).
We acknowledge that cost is a significant barrier to having an onsite ombudsperson and advocacy service at (typically between $8,000 and $15,000 per conference). While ROOT & SHOOT had the benefit of NSF funding, organizations that may want to employ a similar service might not have the funds to do so. Although they may be more limited in the current political climate, organizations can consider seeking funding from private foundations that focus on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, or teaming up with other conference organizers and trying to negotiate a discount when booking services for a number of conferences.
Another option is to book a remote service, where the ombudsperson/advocate attends the conference virtually and is available via phone, email, or text. A virtual service typically costs between $3,000 and $ 5,000 per conference.
Exploring more just systems to respond to harm
The Working Group was also made aware of concerns regarding the systems in place for addressing reports and instances of harm at conferences. We are aware of commonly reported outcomes, including no action being taken following a complaint, a lack of transparency regarding the process, and no follow-up with the complainant (see, for example, Ahmed, 2021). We asked, in an inclusive, transparent, empowered, and equal plant science culture, what would happen when a transgression occurred? Answering that question requires involving the community in establishing guidelines and consequences. Ideally, we would like to see processes that are not purely punitive, but rather those through which relationships are repaired and that allow those who have experienced harm to reclaim their agency. Therefore, we explored the possibility of incorporating restorative justice models. Restorative justice is an approach to addressing harm or the risk of harm by engaging all those affected in reaching a common understanding and agreement on how the harm or wrongdoing can be repaired and justice achieved (Zehr, 2002). Restorative justice focuses not on prosecution and punishment but on harm done and how to repair it. It expands the circle of stakeholders beyond the governance and offender to include victims and community members. Importantly, restorative justice has been shown to help the transgressors recognize the impact of their actions and work to make meaningful amends to those they have harmed.
In early 2024, we initiated conversations with the plant science community about how we collectively respond to incidents of harm, not only to hear their ideas but also to build trust and goodwill, so that people would be more likely to comply with the processes that were developed. Following several community listening sessions and conversations facilitated by two of the authors (LM and BM), we have drafted an initial accountability process guide and decision-making tree, which we are continuing to refine and develop. However, we note that although a small number of individuals have been very engaged in these conversations, the majority of our community members have not participated in this process; we acknowledge that our community may not be ready to fully engage in this discussion.
Lessons learned and future challenges
By engaging stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, different societies, and career stages, we increased members' sense of belonging within these organizations, especially amongst early-career scientists. Engaging diverse stakeholders and considering their own lived experiences raised questions and issues that had not traditionally been included in the conference planning process. For instance, concerns such as dietary restrictions, personal safety due to conference location, and scheduling conflicts during religious and cultural events were highlighted by the Working Group. Not only were the recommendations developed by the Working Group helpful for organizers in planning conferences, but the process of community engagement to create a shared, iterative set of recommendations also increased the commitment by the organizations to implement them further.
One of the main challenges of this Working Group was coordinating a team of 30 people across multiple time zones, which made it difficult to schedule meetings where everyone could participate. In the future, a smaller core group with clearly defined roles could improve efficiency while still allowing for broad input through periodic check-ins with a larger advisory network. Additionally, the subgroup structure was intentionally flexible, allowing members to self-organize based on interest and expertise. While this approach encouraged engagement, a more structured framework with clearer expectations and timelines might have helped streamline the process. Another key lesson was the overall timeline – completing the work took longer than anticipated. A more iterative approach, gathering feedback from multiple rounds of conferences, could provide better insights into what can realistically be implemented and how effective different recommendations are in practice.
Most of the challenges from this work have arisen from individual societies agreeing with the recommendations in principle but experiencing various barriers to implementing them in practice at the conferences they organize, as outlined below.
Several societies raised concerns about monetary costs. The ROOT & SHOOT project includes large and small organizations with different administrative support systems and funding models. Although some Working Group recommendations can be implemented through policy changes alone, others – such as providing onsite American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or ombudsperson/advocate services – incur significant budgetary costs. As an example, the ASL interpreter required scientific training to accurately convey technical content, a level of specialization that is not mandated by law but was necessary for meaningful access. This increased both the interpreter’s fee and travel-related costs. Additional logistical accommodations, such as ensuring clear visual lines and coordinated session planning between the interpreter and the speaker, were also required. Additionally, legal requirements around accessibility vary by country, and international conferences may not be covered under the same mandates as domestic events. By funding some of these efforts through the ROOT & SHOOT project, we aimed to demonstrate their value and encourage individual societies to sustain their implementation beyond the funding period. Budgetary concerns are likely to persist, and by making the case to funding agencies that supporting the specific items was shown to be effective, this will better enable societies to maintain and expand the inclusivity of their conferences.
One society decided not to have an on-site ombudsperson as they felt that doing so would duplicate existing efforts; this society also had liability concerns associated with contracting a group outside of their society. On the other hand, two conferences that benefited from the on-site provider have elected to find funds to provide this service in future years.
Another challenge we encountered was assessing the outcomes of this work, as different societies employ very different conference assessment tools. Although we requested specific questions to be included in these tools, these requests were generally unsuccessful. In cases where we were able to gather data, we found that small numbers of individuals engaged with the bystander training or onsite provider, which raises the question of how to interpret and proceed with such data. When budget decisions are made, how should an intervention that has a considerable positive impact on a small number of people be ranked?
Conclusions
This project was undertaken from 2022–2024,, during which the NSF actively supported programs to foster inclusion, promote equity, and enhance accessibility. Although the short-term prospects for continuing such work with federal funding in the US looks bleak, we emphasize that most of the recommendations – such as providing an aspirational community agreement that focuses on positive values, providing attendees with information about accessibility, labeling food ingredients, providing family-friendly spaces and gender-neutral bathrooms, and creating a diverse and equitable program – can be implemented without significant cost to the organizers or participants. It is incumbent on all community-serving organizations to work inclusively, to the best of their abilities, so that all community members feel welcome and safe. Community volunteers can accomplish many of these tasks by pre-screening slides for accessibility, surveying the meeting site to provide accessibility information, and serving as onsite advocates. Efforts to promote inclusion at conferences can be carried out discreetly if necessary. Our experiences show us that those who benefit will be aware of the efforts made - those who know, know.
Data availability
There are no data associated with this work.
References
-
Consensus reaching and strategic manipulation in group decision making with trust relationshipsIEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 51:6304–6318.https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2961752
-
Ten simple rules to host an inclusive conferencePLOS Computational Biology 18:e1010164.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010164
-
Impact of scientific conferences on climate change and how to make them eco-friendly and inclusive: A scoping reviewJournal of Climate Change and Health 4:100042.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100042
-
WebsiteThe STEM Labor Force: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical WorkersAccessed August 11, 2025.
-
Millennial attitudes toward disability in three social contextsThe Social Science Journal pp. 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2022.2105592
-
Scientific societies fostering inclusivity through speaker diversity in annual meeting programming: A call to actionMolecular Biology of the Cell 31:2495–2501.https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E20-06-0381
-
BookThe Radical Transformation of Diversity and Inclusion: The Millennial InfluenceThe Leadership Center for Inclusion, Deloitte University.
Decision letter
-
Peter RodgersSenior and Reviewing Editor; eLife, United Kingdom
In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.
Decision letter after peer review:
Thank you for submitting your article " Engaging Stakeholders in Conference Design to Promote Inclusion in the Plant Sciences" to eLife for consideration as a Feature Article.
Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Peter Rodgers of eLife. The following individual involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Yvette Seger (Reviewer #2). Please note that Reviewer #1 did not submit a report.
The reviewers and editor have discussed the reviews and we have drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission. The length of the article is not an issue, so please take as many words as you need (and include Figures as appropriate) to address the comments from the reviewers.
Summary
This article documents the outcomes of an NSF-funded initiative called ROOT & SHOOT that was intended to foster diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion in scientific conferences organized by scientific societies in the field of plant biology. The article will be a useful resource for anyone seeking to organize a conference that will be inclusive and welcoming for individuals of all backgrounds and career stages. However, there are a number of points that need to be addressed, as outlined below.
General assessments
Reviewer #2:
This manuscript documents the outcomes of an NSF-funded initiative intended to foster diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion (DEAI) of the conferences of a collective of seven societies in plant biology. While initiated by the plant biology community, the challenges associated with making scientific conferences inclusive and welcoming environments for individuals of all backgrounds and career stages are not unique to plant biology disciplines, and thus the working group approach and resulting strategies are broadly applicable across STEM fields. This report-out provides an important overview of a consensus-based strategy to obtain member input that was used to make the conferences of the participating societies safe and inclusive environments for fostering professional networks and communicating scientific findings.
Reviewer #3:
The authors and collaborators undertook an ambitious effort to gather feedback and construct recommendations for making scholarly conferences more inclusive. The manuscript conveys some important information regarding both the process and the outcomes of their work. I want to express my admiration for the ROOT & SHOOT team and all they have accomplished. My comments below are in the spirit of collaboration, with the hope of reshaping the manuscript (slightly!) so their work reaches as broad an audience as possible.
Essential revisions:
[1] As it is a review of a process utilized by the ROOT & SHOOT collaborative, there are no obvious weaknesses. However, recognizing that this essay could be a resource used by other scientific organizations to address comparable concerns at their conferences, it would be useful to include additional information about the participating societies, such as approximate total membership for each, conference cadence, and approximate conference attendees, allowing readers to better understand the scope of this effort.
[2] The authors also acknowledge that several of the agreed upon strategies were only feasible due to the ability to defray associated costs via the NSF grant. The conclusion alludes to current challenges associated with obtaining federal support for these activities. In addition to highlighting the low-cost options that organizations can pursue to make a conference more inclusive, it would be helpful to share strategies considered by the ROOT & SHOOT consortium to defray costs associated with bystander training and/or on-site ombud/advocate to continue these interventions following the conclusion of grant support.
[3] The biggest weakness of the manuscript is that it felt like it was telling two stories (1 process and 2 outcome), and in my opinion, focused too heavily on the process. As such, the article would benefit from a longer discussion of the outcomes and recommendations.
The recommendations were largely relegated to a table, with little elaboration. The authors elaborated on only three interventions – but did not explain why those three? Were these the "most likely to be successful for the largest number of conferences"? Were they the most widely trialled by ROOT&SHOOT societies?
I was also intrigued by the note that some of the ICWG recommendations were already being implemented by societies. That's great! It would be amazing to list those (or simply add an asterisk in the table indicating they are already in-place by societies (maybe if 2 or more are already doing it?)).
At the end of the manuscript, you mention some of the interventions are low-cost – can you somehow point those out in the table as well?
My biggest wish for this manuscript would be for the group to make it really obvious what the low-hanging fruits are that all conferences could implement.
[4] My burning question when reading about the ICWG was if anyone on the WG had ever organized a conference before (perhaps serving on a conference organizing committee) or if any professional conference staff from participating societies engaged with the WG at all (as members or guests). My concern about this grew when the manuscript included legally-required ADA compliance (ASL interpreters) in a sentence about how costs may prevent future implementation of some recommendations. Any professional event staff know and understand that this is a legal requirement (with very few exceptions). Of the things I've listed to be added, this would be my #1 request.
[5] "On-site ombudsperson and advocacy ambassador" section: the paragraph starting with "due to confidentiality standards of practice…" has information that would be great to highlight more. We talk about making societies more inclusive and speak in vague terms about how conferences are "not inclusive", but majority attendees do not understand what that looks like. A text box highlighting these would be impactful in showing exactly what issues arise at real conferences.
[6] "On site ombudsperson" section: A minor recommendation that could improve this or future presentations around the results would be to elaborate on usage of what sounded like a very costly service. In the manuscript, you note that this service was requested and utilized "at least once" at each conference. Given the expense involved, it would be helpful to have some sort of metric – e.g., number of inquiries per thousand attendees per conference day – or something like that. I realize that is watering down a lot of important information and assigning metrics to something like providing a safe and inclusive environment is maybe questionable, but the reality is that conferences are getting more and more expensive to provide what we already provide (AV, catering, security, etc. have all gone through the roof in recent years).
Similarly, you mention a society opted out since they already had a procedure in place – can ROOT & SHOOT facilitate some sort of comparison of costs, effectiveness, utilization, etc. for the different models of having some reporting/ombudsperson function at a conference? What sort of procedures and training could the society that does this on their own share with others who can't afford professional services in the future?
[7] Bystander intervention training section: What was attendance like in these sessions? Were society leaders required to attend or was attendance "preaching to the choir"? (I do not mean that in a harsh way; as someone who has worked in this space, I mean that voluntary attendance rarely attracts the people who need to be there).
[8] "Working towards a more just system of accountability". I have done a lot of work in the DEI space and I still struggled to understand in practical terms what this section was trying to convey. Even using a hypothetical example would be helpful here.
[9] I was very interested in reading more about the implementation phase and seeing more detail about how the recommendations translated into new practices. What did attendees say? Did they find the bystander intervention training valuable? How many people signed up? Did conferences with high bystander intervention training participation see more use of reporting of incidents? Did attendees at those conferences report a higher sense of belonging at the conference?
I am completely sympathetic to the authors' comment that trying to get standardized language into conferences run by multiple groups was challenging, but even seeing post-event data from 1-2 conferences would have been very powerful – even some qualitative open ended responses indicating attendee reaction to those interventions (e.g., x percent/number of attendees specifically mentioned inclusive features in open-ended survey questions following conferences).
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.106877.sa1Author response
Essential revisions:
[1] As it is a review of a process utilized by the ROOT & SHOOT collaborative, there are no obvious weaknesses. However, recognizing that this essay could be a resource used by other scientific organizations to address comparable concerns at their conferences, it would be useful to include additional information about the participating societies, such as approximate total membership for each, conference cadence, and approximate conference attendees, allowing readers to better understand the scope of this effort.
We appreciate the suggestion to provide additional context about the participating societies. To address this, we have created a new supplemental table (Supplemental Table 1) that includes key logistical details for each society, such as total membership, frequency of conferences, and typical conference attendance. We invited all participating societies to contribute this information via a shared document, which we compiled into the table now included in the revised manuscript. This added context helps clarify the scale and diversity of the ROOT & SHOOT collaborative effort.
[2] The authors also acknowledge that several of the agreed upon strategies were only feasible due to the ability to defray associated costs via the NSF grant. The conclusion alludes to current challenges associated with obtaining federal support for these activities. In addition to highlighting the low-cost options that organizations can pursue to make a conference more inclusive, it would be helpful to share strategies considered by the ROOT & SHOOT consortium to defray costs associated with bystander training and/or on-site ombud/advocate to continue these interventions following the conclusion of grant support.
We agree that sustainability of these interventions beyond the period of federal support is an important concern. To address this, we have expanded the “On-site ombudsperson and advocacy ambassador” section to include a discussion of potential cost-sharing strategies among participating societies, including the idea of a joint contract model to distribute costs across multiple annual meetings. We also note that private foundations with a focus on DEIA and accessibility may be well-positioned to support these types of services going forward.
In addition, we suggest lower-cost alternatives such as engaging a virtual ombudsperson or advocate who can attend sessions remotely and remain accessible via phone or text. This approach could significantly reduce expenses related to travel and lodging while maintaining a critical layer of support for attendees. These options, along with detailed cost breakdowns and implementation considerations, are now included in the revised text to help other organizations plan for long-term integration of these essential services.
[3] The biggest weakness of the manuscript is that it felt like it was telling two stories (1 process and 2 outcome), and in my opinion, focused too heavily on the process. As such, the article would benefit from a longer discussion of the outcomes and recommendations.
The recommendations were largely relegated to a table, with little elaboration. The authors elaborated on only three interventions – but did not explain why those three? Were these the "most likely to be successful for the largest number of conferences"? Were they the most widely trailed by ROOT&SHOOT societies?
I was also intrigued by the note that some of the ICWG recommendations were already being implemented by societies. That's great! It would be amazing to list those (or simply add an asterisk in the table indicating they are already in-place by societies (maybe if 2 or more are already doing it?)).
At the end of the manuscript, you mention some of the interventions are low-cost – can you somehow point those out in the table as well?
My biggest wish for this manuscript would be for the group to make it really obvious what the low-hanging fruits are that all conferences could implement.
Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response, we have expanded the discussion of outcomes and recommendations throughout the manuscript. Specifically, the section “INCLUSIVE CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS” now includes five distinct subsections corresponding to the major outcome categories and the subgroups that contributed to them. This provides a more comprehensive narrative of the process-to-outcome pipeline. We also revised Table 1 to indicate which recommendations were already being implemented prior to the ICWG effort, as well as which were adopted afterward. In addition, we included new supplemental materials, such as a checklist for Transparent site selection and the recommendations for Accessibility. These additions aim to make the manuscript a more practical and immediately useful resource for other scientific organizations.
[4] My burning question when reading about the ICWG was if anyone on the WG had ever organized a conference before (perhaps serving on a conference organizing committee) or if any professional conference staff from participating societies engaged with the WG at all (as members or guests). My concern about this grew when the manuscript included legally-required ADA compliance (ASL interpreters) in a sentence about how costs may prevent future implementation of some recommendations. Any professional event staff know and understand that this is a legal requirement (with very few exceptions). Of the things I've listed to be added, this would be my #1 request.
We have added the information of the general experience of the working group participants. “Although it was not a requirement, most (seventeen out of twenty-four) of those who participated in the Working Group had previous experience organizing a conference. Their experiences ranged from having organized informal networking events and smaller workshops to having professionally organized several in-person and virtual conferences with thousands of attendees.”
We also added some of the ASL challenges that we observed based on our experience in the challenge section “As an example, the ASL interpreter required scientific training to accurately convey technical content, a level of specialization that is not mandated by law but was necessary for meaningful access. This increased both the interpreter's fee and travel-related costs. Additional logistical accommodations, such as ensuring clear visual lines and coordinated session planning between interpreter and speaker, were also required. Furthermore, legal requirements around accessibility vary by country, and international conferences may not be covered under the same mandates as domestic events.”
[5] "On-site ombudsperson and advocacy ambassador" section: the paragraph starting with "due to confidentiality standards of practice…" has information that would be great to highlight more. We talk about making societies more inclusive and speak in vague terms about how conferences are "not inclusive", but majority attendees do not understand what that looks like. A text box highlighting these would be impactful in showing exactly what issues arise at real conferences.
Thank you for this important suggestion. We have created a new table (Table 2) that outlines a range of real or commonly observed incidents that can compromise inclusivity at conferences. These include inappropriate or offensive slide content, lack of accessibility accommodations, disrespectful or aggressive behavior during Q&A sessions, violations of the code of conduct, and exclusionary dynamics during networking events. For each issue, we provide a brief description along with potential strategies for prevention or response. These examples draw from both our collective experience and scenarios presented in bystander training sessions. Our goal is to offer readers a clearer picture of what non-inclusive environments can look like in practice, and how societies and organizers can proactively address them. We believe that by making these situations visible and actionable, scientific organizations will be better equipped to foster safer, more welcoming conference environments.
[6] "On site ombudsperson" section: A minor recommendation that could improve this or future presentations around the results would be to elaborate on usage of what sounded like a very costly service. In the manuscript, you note that this service was requested and utilized "at least once" at each conference. Given the expense involved, it would be helpful to have some sort of metric – e.g., number of inquiries per thousand attendees per conference day – or something like that. I realize that is watering down a lot of important information and assigning metrics to something like providing a safe and inclusive environment is maybe questionable, but the reality is that conferences are getting more and more expensive to provide what we already provide (AV, catering, security, etc. have all gone through the roof in recent years).
Similarly, you mention a society opted out since they already had a procedure in place – can ROOT & SHOOT facilitate some sort of comparison of costs, effectiveness, utilization, etc. for the different models of having some reporting/ombudsperson function at a conference? What sort of procedures and training could the society that does this on their own share with others who can't afford professional services in the future?
We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. To address it, we have added a paragraph at the end of the “On-site ombudsperson and advocacy ambassador” section that outlines typical cost structures for this service. In-person ombudsperson services generally range from $8,000–$15,000 per conference, depending on the level of engagement. This estimate includes daily professional fees, registration, travel, lodging, and per diem. In contrast, virtual participation models (including phone or text-based support) typically range from $3,000–$5,000 and represent a more accessible option for smaller meetings or societies with limited budgets.
[7] Bystander intervention training section: What was attendance like in these sessions? Were society leaders required to attend or was attendance "preaching to the choir"? (I do not mean that in a harsh way; as someone who has worked in this space, I mean that voluntary attendance rarely attracts the people who need to be there).
Intervention Training Workshops” that discusses attendance and participation in more detail. Attendance was voluntary and varied by society and conference, and we acknowledge that this approach may not always reach individuals who would benefit most from the training. Some societies marked attendees with a different color badge, which created visibility but also raised concerns about signaling. To address this issue going forward, societies are exploring strategies to encourage broader participation, including offering incentives such as discounted registration for attendees who complete training. In one case, a society required bystander intervention training for individuals organizing sessions, a model we highlight as a promising step toward structural change.
We have also included a new supplemental resource, a slide deck developed by one of our working group members that can serve as a starting point for societies interested in implementing their own training sessions. Our goal is to promote both accessibility and accountability in the adoption of these practices.
[8] "Working towards a more just system of accountability". I have done a lot of work in the DEI space and I still struggled to understand in practical terms what this section was trying to convey. Even using a hypothetical example would be helpful here.
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We agree that this section addresses a complex and evolving topic, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our intent. In response, we have added a section named “Exploring More Just Systems to Respond to Harm.” This section includes a clearer explanation of restorative justice principles, emphasizing the importance of centering the needs of the person harmed while also holding the person who caused harm accountable in a way that prevents future harm. We acknowledge that our community is still in the early stages of exploring these frameworks. As part of this process, we held listening sessions to better understand readiness and perspectives across our member societies. These sessions revealed both enthusiasm for change and significant uncertainty about implementation, which we reflect in the revised text.
[9] I was very interested in reading more about the implementation phase and seeing more detail about how the recommendations translated into new practices. What did attendees say? Did they find the bystander intervention training valuable? How many people signed up? Did conferences with high bystander intervention training participation see more use of reporting of incidents? Did attendees at those conferences report a higher sense of belonging at the conference?
I am completely sympathetic to the authors' comment that trying to get standardized language into conferences run by multiple groups was challenging, but even seeing post-event data from 1-2 conferences would have been very powerful – even some qualitative open ended responses indicating attendee reaction to those interventions (e.g., x percent/number of attendees specifically mentioned inclusive features in open-ended survey questions following conferences).
Thank you for this thoughtful and important comment. We have expanded the “On-site Ombudsperson and Advocacy Ambassador” section to include additional details on how these interventions were received by attendees. While it is still early in the implementation phase and comprehensive quantitative data across conferences are not yet available, we do have preliminary feedback from post-event surveys and informal debriefs.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.106877.sa2Article and author information
Author details
Kanwardeep S Rawale
Melanie Link-Perez
Cody Coyotee Howard
Funding
National Science Foundation (DBI-2134321)
- Mary Williams
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Publication history
- Received:
- Accepted:
- Version of Record published:
Copyright
© 2025, Puig-Lluch et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 0
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: Making conferences in the plant sciences more inclusive through community recommendations
eLife 14:e106877.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.106877
