ArticlePDF Available

Doing the Work of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Article

Doing the Work of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Abstract

As textbook and academic authors revise their work in light of diversity, equity, and inclusion, we find that mere awareness is not enough—we must do the work. In this essay, some of the frustrations and the hidden benefits of this work are laid out.
I once again find myself writing about
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in
textbooks. Not because I am—or feel
myself to be—an expert in any aspect
of DEI. Far from it. I am writing again
because these concerns continue to weigh on me.
As a textbook author, I have a grave responsibility that goes beyond
the obvious promise to deliver useful content for learning my subject.
It is not only my descriptions and explanations and examples that
affect my users—it is also the voice and vision that comes through
those written words.
The attitude projected through a textbook’s pages can touch
the lives of readers and have meaningful impact on them. We may
encourage our readers this way, but when not fully inclusive, our
attitude may instead become a barrier to learning.
A conviction that I need to be better has dawned slowly. I started
out with the naïve attitude that a desire to do good and be inclusive
was enough. I’ve discovered, however, that my own lens is not an
accurate one. It has not been informed by the discrimination, invisibility,
and outright injury experienced by my colleagues and diverse readership.
I need the help of others to see that, so that I can refocus my lens to a
wider view.
I’ve also discovered that mere awareness will not accomplish what
I must in my writing. I must also do the work.
The DEI conversation has ramped up within all the academic
disciplines in the last few months. In anticipation of this, TAA
established its Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (CDEI).
Already, the CDEI’s work has had substantial impact. For example,
I have received helpful information and advice that helps me and
others to do the needed work and improve our textbooks.
Along with my team, I have also begun this work in my A&P
textbooks. Using what I’ve learned from the recent TAA Annual
Conference, articles from The Academic Author and Abstract (the
TAA blog), and resources found in my own research, I’ve already
started making substantial changes in my textbooks. And what I’ve
found is that, well, it is indeed work. Work that is difficult and, at
times, frustrating.
One obstacle that I encountered early in this process is the lack of
guidance on what, exactly, we must do to be inclusive in our writing.
It seems simple, doesn’t it? Include everyone. But how one does that
in textbook writing is not always clear.
I was already aware of various publisher guides for authors, many
of which have been recently updated for inclusivity. However, these
are not complete. Most often, these publisher guides lack guiding
principles that may help authors as they encounter specific issues
when writing in their respective subject. Instead, the guides seem
to focus on a few broad style recommendations that are general in
application.
For example, they may advise us not to use “his” or “mankind”
or other gender-biased terms for generic references to humanity.
But when it comes to discipline-specific terms such as “daughter cell”
or “sister chromatid,” we are on our own to find alternatives. These
terms have emerging alternates in the literature (offspring cell;
duplicate chromatid) but some do not. It is often challenging to
find established alternatives. It may be tough to decide what to do
with a clearly problematic term that does not yet have an acceptable
alternative. Should we make one up? Doing so may be more inclusive,
but will it serve students who are expected to know the language of
their discipline?
Sometimes, my focus on being inclusive has made it difficult to
write prose that is simple and clear enough that beginning college
students can read it without difficulty. For example, I can change
“mother’s blood supply” to “uterine blood supply” without making
things awkward. But repeatedly referring to parents and offspring
in a chapter about prenatal development or genetics without excluding
those who are adopted members of a family is difficult. Instead of
changing all terms, or being vague in my use of terms, or adding
convoluted disclaimers to each use of a term, another method is to
briefly explain inclusivity concerns with terms they really must
learn.
Even though this process is hard for me, and I’m sure I’m making
mistakes, I have found a hidden benefit. For example, books in my
discipline often use terms such as “normal” and “abnormal” that
in many cases can be problematic. If a condition is merely out of
the ordinary, we have sometimes dubbed it as “abnormal” with no
concern for how that affects individuals on the outskirts of the diverse
spectrum of humanity. These individuals are not defective—they
are wonderfully unique and healthy.
If I refer to “normal” body temperature, am I referring to that use-
less number marked “normal” on my little thermometer from the
local pharmacy? Or am I referring to a more accurate average human
body temperature? Or am I referring to what is “normal” for a
particular individual—which is nearly always the case in my text-
books. Replacing “normal” with a synonym such as “healthy”
(or perhaps simply deleting the word) has made many passages
simpler and easier to read. These edits may also be more accurate,
as well.
As I integrate DEI sensibility into my work, I am making my
textbooks more valuable for the many learners who will be using
them. An ongoing practice of learning about DEI concerns and how
to address them helps me in the process of adjusting the focus of my
own lens. TAA, through our CDEI, continues the supportive work
needed to sustain authors. Will you join me in rolling up our sleeves
and making the world a better place?
—Kevin Patton, Ph.D.
kevin@lionden.com
2www.taaonline.net
Doing the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion
President’s Message
from The Academic Author. K Patton. 2021:3 p.2
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.