While action is essential, inappropriate action can cause more harm than good. Self-education on these topics is a vital starting point. There is robust literature on theories and interventions about improving diversity and inclusion that we can all learn from. We recommend engaging with DEIJ literature through a discussion-based journal club to foster a sense of community and facilitate productive discussions. A well-structured journal club provides a valuable platform for learning about DEIJ theories and developing effective strategies to address equity gaps in your environment. Developing a deeper understanding of DEIJ empowers participants to advocate for and apply inclusive frameworks to their teaching pedagogy, departmental practices, and other institutional contexts.

There is vast scholarship in history, sociology, bioethics, science and technology studies, discipline-based education research, and more. Defining the scope of your journal club enables the group to identify relevant articles, foster meaningful discussions, and brainstorm solutions for ongoing DEIJ issues. To help define the focus of your journal club, ask yourself the following questions:

Discussions about how systems of oppression negatively influence academia (and society at large) can sometimes result in discomfort and tension among participants. For healthy and productive discussions, all participants must feel safe to share their thoughts and/or personal experiences. Defining boundaries as a group helps create a space for difficult but important conversations. In addition to setting boundaries, defining clear expectations of participants is important for minimizing miscommunication and the potential for harm. Based on established restorative justice principles, here are some boundaries and expectations we established in our own journal club:

If a discussion becomes contentious or unsafe, the discussion leader should attempt to facilitate conflict resolution, beginning with reiterating the community expectations and restorative mindset principles. If resolving the conflict does not seem feasible, the discussion leader should end the current session and seek support from external partners trained in conflict resolution and/or restorative justice practices. There should not be any additional journal club discussions until the harm caused has been addressed and steps forward for healing the group have been identified.

We encourage rotating discussion leaders to foster active participation and distribute responsibilities among participants. For each session, the discussion leader selects an article (see Recommendation #4), guides the conversation, and ensures respectful engagement. By rotating leaders, we not only share the responsibility of organizing and leading the journal club but also allow everyone the opportunity to discuss a topic that they find interesting or relevant.

The discussion leader’s first responsibility is to pick an article (see Recommendations #1 and #4) and read any relevant background literature. We suggest reading related works, beginning with those cited in the article and works that cite the article (if available). Once the discussion leader has selected the article, they need to notify the participants with sufficient time to read the article and any additional recommended materials.

Once the discussion leader has reviewed the relevant materials and performed this self-reflexive exercise, they should develop questions to help guide the discussion. When writing these questions, the discussion leader should reflect on their personal identities and how their experiences may influence the questions they ask. In addition, the leader should be mindful to avoid simplistic assumptions or oversights that could trigger trauma or cause harm.

The third responsibility of the discussion leader is to lead the discussion! In our experience, we have found that discussion-based journal clubs allow people to express their opinions, explore the limits of their knowledge and comfort, and imagine novel solutions*. Discussion leaders should be aware of the power dynamics within the group, whether based on personal identities or professional roles. Depending on the topic, creating discussion groups by career stage (graduate students only, faculty only, etc.) may allow for more candid conversations. However, there is value in discussions across career stages, and these opportunities should be offered as long as a safe and respectful environment is guaranteed.

At the beginning of each journal club, the discussion leader should reiterate the expectations, provide a brief overview of the article, and explain why they selected this article. The discussion leader should allocate time at the end of the session for participants to develop action items and key take-aways. While this is not required, we have found it useful to have the discussion leader write a summarizing blog post for each journal club session.

*Authors’ note: There is no right way to operate a “discussion-based” journal club, so we encourage you to discuss with your participants what format and tools will help everyone engage with the material. For some, this means beginning with a summary presentation by the discussion leader prior to an open dialogue. For others, the entire session may be open dialogue. Do whatever feels right for your group.

The core of a journal club is, spoiler alert, the articles. Discussion leaders should choose an article they feel comfortable discussing in-depth (see Recommendation #3). Leaders can build that comfort by reviewing supplemental materials or talking with subject experts to ensure that they are prepared to guide a fruitful discussion. Thoughtful article selection and discussion preparation will help cultivate productive discussions and encourage participants to identify connections between the article and their environment. In addition to the article topic (see Recommendation #1), you should also consider the type of article, article length, and the academic background of your journal club participants. Given that most articles will be outside of your group’s area of study, consider providing optional supplemental readings to provide context for your main discussion article.

Scholarly articles come in various types, such as theoretical works, observational or interventional case studies, and commentaries. Using diverse types of articles provides complementary perspectives and provides participants with a deeper understanding of each article selected for discussion. Theoretical articles can provide a comprehensive overview but are often more dense and require substantial background knowledge. Observational or interventional studies focus on practical applications of theoretical frameworks and are most similar to life sciences research articles. Commentary or opinion pieces typically provide more accessible insight into a complex topic, often incorporating anecdotal and/or personal experiences to support the author’s argument.

However, due to their content and writing style, different article types will require varying amounts of background knowledge and supplementary reading by participants. It is important to account for this and provide adequate time and resources for participants to prepare for discussion. Pairing different types of articles, such as a theory article with a commentary piece, provides the reader with primary literature and a more accessible summary of that literature. Likewise, recommending a theoretical or commentary piece in addition to the main interventional study article provides additional context to help the reader understand the study’s design and data analysis methods.

One goal of forming a DEIJ journal club is to continue to discuss DEIJ beyond your scheduled sessions, slowly (or rapidly) integrating these topics into lab or department discussions. By talking about DEIJ outside of your journal club, you begin to signal to others that these discussions are normal and appropriate for academic spaces.

One way you can begin to incorporate DEIJ into your daily life is by reflecting on the articles you’ve read and considering how you can apply any recommendations or findings from those articles to your environment. For example, if you recently read an article about how bias can affect interview outcomes during graduate recruitment or hiring, and the authors provide tools on how to combat these biases—talk to your supervisor about implementing these tools in your recruitment and hiring process.

Educating oneself on DEIJ is necessary but not sufficient. We must transform what we’ve learned into action to make a difference. We hope that by creating a space where like-minded individuals can connect, interact, and strategize, you will cultivate a community of scientists who are passionate about advancing equity and inclusion and empowered to take action.

Discussion sessions should allocate time to brainstorming action items. These items can range from small, personal changes to more substantial local or institutional changes. By closing the journal club session with a call to action, the group must synthesize the article’s findings and theoretical frameworks and identify aspects of their environment that are susceptible to positive change.

Sharing is caring—consider sharing your discussion summaries with your colleagues. We relied on blog posts and social media (R.I.P. to Science Twitter) to share our summaries with the broader scientific community. When drafting your discussion summary, refer to specific data in the article to support your proposed action items. Inquire your faculty mentor and/or department chair about the funding and institutional resources available to facilitate the implementation of these action items. If you, dear reader, hold a leadership role in your lab, department, or institution, use that opportunity to advocate for implementing these action items.

Even though you may just be starting your DEIJ journey, we encourage you to think big about your potential impact on your institution. Suppose you can get your department to value and promote DEIJ activities. In that case, this will have positive implications on departmental culture, ranging from incorporation of DEIJ curriculum in graduate education to increased recruitment and retention of trainees and faculty from marginalized backgrounds. There is immense value in understanding how your work at the bench translates into the real world (e.g., the development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine and the resultant public response (and backlash) against this novel therapeutic). Any positive change you enact may be the snowball that causes an avalanche.

Running a successful journal club requires consistent effort and resources. First and foremost, creating a welcoming and inclusive environment is an ongoing process. It requires centering restorative practice to encourage engagement from all participants, especially those from marginalized backgrounds.

Running a journal club also demands significant time and resources, which can be challenging when all participants are volunteers. Here are some considerations to help reduce the burden of organizing a journal club and keep this activity sustainable:

Periodically evaluating the impact of your journal club will allow you to continue facilitating meaningful discussions and promoting change in your community. First, define what a successful journal club looks like. In the Fraser Lab, we defined success as (1) the percentage of lab participation; (2) the number of discussions conducted annually; and (3) the effective implementation of new lab policies. Success will look different depending on your group’s goals and objectives, but it should be specifically defined to guide your efforts. Some metrics of success you may consider include:

Your group should periodically revisit its definition of success and update it as necessary. It is important to note that not all discussions will lead to tangible outcomes, and the absence of such outcomes should not be considered a failure.

On an annual basis, solicit participant feedback using an anonymous numerical evaluation form where respondents can provide honest feedback. Feedback should be reviewed and summarized by someone outside of your lab or department to ensure anonymity and candor. Some suggested questions that can be answered using a Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree scale include:

Once you have gathered feedback, review the data as a group and update your journal club’s expectations, boundaries, and conflict resolution protocols as appropriate (see Recommendation #2).

Your experience and understanding of a lab or department’s culture, combined with the expertise of social scientist scholars, can create a formidable synergy. We encourage you to invite scholars outside of your discipline to attend a journal club or to speak on a specific topic. Solicit funding from your graduate program, lab PI, and/or department chair so you can compensate the speaker for their time. Social scientists and humanities scholars can provide field-specific insights into the articles you are discussing, offering a new perspective to consider in future discussions.

If your journal club becomes very popular (WOO! You created something people want to be a part of!), we recommend creating smaller discussion groups (approximately 6 to 8 people) to facilitate productive discussions where all participants are able to contribute. You can always convene these smaller groups together and have someone report back from each group on what they discussed.

If someone from another lab or department wants to start their own journal club, invite them to attend yours so they can develop ideas about how to structure their own. Meet with them to discuss what has worked, what hasn’t, and what you are considering changing in the future. Oh, and tell them to read this article.