What's the case? That people won't naturally come to the idea that they could do something unless they are "represented" in that field already? How does any new field form, then?
Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field?
I think there's a valid question of, do people want these jobs for the status of having them, or do they want these jobs because they have a deep passion for the subject itself? I presume that if it's the latter, then simple "representation" poses no barrier to those people. If it's the former, then I'm not at all bothered by their inability to chase status in a particular field.
> Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field?
The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. Having to overcome both is certainly not fair to anyone.
> The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study.
And, "representation" fixes this? I see the connection between the two, but I don't think it's direct.. and I think calls for "representation" step over this chasm entirely in the hopes that the solution will sort of just materialize.
I also think it is highly likely that focusing on this alone creates the opposite social pressures, pushing people into highly competitive landscapes filled with driven people just to serve as an undistinguished poster child who's meant to merely be a token of "representation in the field."
I don't think genuine "unethical social" or "political resistance" to inclusion is solved this way. Further, if there are these gate-keeping mechanisms in front of what should be pure meritorious pursuits, then all you might be doing is forcing those gatekeepers to put a different face on their lack of ethics rather than throwing them off the sciences entirely.
It's not so much that I disagree with it or think it's not a valid concern, I just think this sole focus on "inclusion" and "representation" is entirely half thought out will only serve to make the actual problem worse.
Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field?
I think there's a valid question of, do people want these jobs for the status of having them, or do they want these jobs because they have a deep passion for the subject itself? I presume that if it's the latter, then simple "representation" poses no barrier to those people. If it's the former, then I'm not at all bothered by their inability to chase status in a particular field.