The woke roll back continues

🎯

*@newmummycwharf1 Really - you think you have "share(d) data that is publicly available but rarely viewed by the public", What you have done is to patronisingly suggest that people spend a lot of time finding information themselves because you are not willing or able to share it. You've provided an excellent example of why people might choose not to engage with research or researchers.

Diversity of researchers includes people from various backgrounds including working class, socioeconomically deprived etc. The conversation here was about racism. The reality of racism does not negate other causes of inequity.

Citations are just that - quoting research, most of which are government white papers with a long list of original papers from across the globe including UK. Many in high impact factor journals. That is how quality of research is judged. And impact on policy, which these research papers have had - including directing major research funding to correct the underlying issues I have flagged.

I am not asking for opinion or wanting people to agree with me. This is work we have done and that has had the required impact. It is for your information - take it or leave it.

You can learn more about systemic racism, diversity needs in research by reading the reference lists. The organisations that train researchers and fund research in the UK have listened and taken action. Not based on emotion but on rigorous methodical research that is actually ongoing but has already delivered results.

This thread has been enlightening and I am glad I was able to share data that is publicly available but rarely viewed by the public. The more that are enlightened, the better.

I will now go back to continue the work I am doing in real life!

@newmummycwharf1 The research you are quoting on diversity of researchers seems to be solely based on citations - but if you want to show off your woke credentials you will be biased towards citing papers with a wider range of authors. And some is just based on opinion - but if you can get others to often cite your opinion as "research" it looks more impressive to some. Citations may be one commonly used way of assessing quality of work but really identifying good research is harder than that. And if you really want diversity the people you are missing are actually the most marginalised in society - poor white men and boys in particular but the disadvantaged in general. Recruiting research staff who will generally be from privileged families doesnt really address that, you need more empathy in your researchers.

If you really want to encourage diversity in research then constantly described organisations as "systemically racist" is not the way to encourage people to get involved. You know that this makes it more difficult to get women to antenatal appointments, to recruit diverse staff. to encourage participants in research and to encourage students to stay in research - but you are still happy to push that line.

There is a very strong sense of justice in most British people, it's why we queue. That means racism is actually a minority. It also means that excessive preferential treatment leads to pushback. You are obviously going to be biased in assessment of what is funded and who does the research because you are putting ideas of a "unique perspective" ahead of choosing good proposals.

It is possible that you are more learned on the topic than the vast number of Professors of neonatology and Obs &Gynae involved in conducting the systematic reviews used to inform this policy paper:
https://www.nhsrho.org/research/review-of-neonatal-assessment-and-practice-in-black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-newborns-exploring-the-apgar-score-the-detection-of-cyanosis-and-jaundice/

It is also possible that you are aware that systematic reviews/meta-analysis are a higher level than randomised controlled trials - so the highest level of evidence

If the positive predictive value of a screening tool is lower for a group of people - it is not fit for purpose for that group and needs updating. To most people - that goes without saying. The point is to improve the screening tests to the rate of detection is improve for all babies it is applied and intervention introduced early to prevent negative outcomes including death.

Again - hope that helps.

Exactly.

But that’s just it. DEI in its current incarnation has done very little to address the very real obstacles still faced by women, disabled people and people of colour, and indeed LGB people.

The issue is that DEI overall has been completely hijacked by the genderist lobby, and further privileges the already privileged (straight white males, mostly) at the expense of those who have been and still are traditionally marginalised.

That’s my beef with it. I hate the way that much-needed initiatives to encourage genuine inclusion and diversity have been contaminated with this fake “inclusion” and “diversity” that actually does the opposite of what it’s supposed to.

I don’t know what the answer is, but the kind of “DEI” I personally am happy to see go has, as you point out, completely failed to redress the balance as it was supposed to.

This ☝️

would never celebrate this

Also using the word ‘woke’ disparagingly is a massive red flag for me, coming out of anti-equal rights/far right corners of the internet and people saying ‘political correctness gone mad’ etc 🤢

@newmummycwharf1 I actually thing the APGAR paper you link to above is a good exaple of activism replacing evidence based medicine.
I'm not sure if I'm posting this in haste, and will regret being blunt, but as you say you are so high up in the organisation which is driving alot of this research-ajacent activity and policy development, I want to point out that the APGAR test is a screening tool, not a diagnostic tool. So infants with dark skin are not being "diagnosed as cyanotic," they are receiving one less point on a screening tool that then leads to further treatment (if urgent) or investigation, not diagnosis.

I think it's probably just more difficult to quickly and accurately observe cyanosis around the lips of baby with dark skin than light.
Writing up papers about how midwives are marking down babies of women of colour for not having pink enough skin looks great to an audience who have no experience working with newborns. But would you want to be the midwife who says, It looks to me like that infant is oxygen deprived but I won't say anything because maybe I'm just being racist. ?

… and I have never seen Diversity practices improve with the DEI practitioners. It tends to happen within organizations through a couple of individuals leading by example in a non-patronizing way.

How is that different from the direction of travel in the current DEI regime?

Assuming that DEI activists won’t happily shaft anyone (regardless of protected characteristic) is naive in the extreme.

Regardless of intention, DEI practitioners tend to make things worse by being intransigent, high handed, and spiteful.

I also find that when people use the lazy "educate yourself" what they really mean is I want you to read sources that confirm my bias.

Or in the case of trans nonsense people educate themselves and end up TERFs. 😂😂

Tonnes of research showing inclusive research in terms of participants is critical. Similarly, evidence demonstrating the positive impact of diversity amongst researchers. It improves diversity of participation, diversity of thought and enquiry, amongst other benefits.

UKRI, MRC, NIHR - all the major research councils have extensive white papers on this, in addition to scientific literature available freely via Pubmed to anyone interested in truly understanding as opposed to bored and keen to argue.

As earlier said, education is your friend. And if you can get on mumsnet, you can educate yourself

@DoreenonTill8

"Not for me... I quickly prostrate myself, sobbing in thanks that I have seen the light and am READY TO BE EDUCATED!!"

Well seems you are in luck because the left has always been a big supporter of re education camps from China to Vietnam to N Korea.

Not for me... I quickly prostrate myself, sobbing in thanks that I have seen the light and am READY TO BE EDUCATED!!!

This

There are courses on ethnicity and diversity in research. Feel free to educate yourself if you are interested.

@newmummycwharf1

I always cringe when people say to "educate yourself". It demonstrates a lack of ability to argue the point.

@newmummycwharf1 Humans all originated in Africa and still share 99.9% of DNA.https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics#:~:text=All%20human%20beings%20are%2099.9,about%20the%20causes%20of%20diseases. We have far more in common than we have differences - but some people make a living from exaggerating the differences.

Racism is treating your colleague differently because of their ethnicity. You wouldnt have mentioned who did the research if the lead had been male, pale and stale (unless he was trans).

I recommend this book for you https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/1800751427

Btw you seem to be missing the point on ethnicity in research - much more about the subjects than the researcher.

GPWM!

"Humans are not a monolith" also suggests that there are no defining characteristic amongst people of a particular race or ethnicity......'Diversity' need, therefore, not be predicated on race or ethnicity, any more than it need be predicated on any other 'defining' characteristic.

Do you really mean to be passive aggressive in your phrasing. -as if alternative perspectives must be put in their place?

There are courses on ethnicity and diversity in research. Feel free to educate yourself if you are interested.

One of the problems I see with DEI is the supply and demand imbalance of racism.

It is my belief that in society there are now very few racists (as per the definition below) but an ever increasing number of people that wish to find racism or describe behaviour as racist.

The problem with this approach is firstly the over use of the words racist, racism and discrimination. Secondly it starts to destroy ambition and hope in non white communities- "why bother trying when we are constantly told we won't succeed anyway because of institutional racism ".

The supply/ demand imbalance on racial discrimination has also led to campaigners or activists seeking to find discrimination in other previously less discussed areas such as trans rights or mental health. A side effect of this is that more well known areas of discrimination such as disability or sexism become increasingly overlooked.

Note: racism is defined as a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race and leading to behaviours or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice.

Exactly this! How does this help disabled, minorities, pregnant women etc. it’s just putting up a flag and then saying we are great and inclusive. Actually you are not - you are excluding 99% of the population is how most sensible people see it.

Ugh terrible typing.

The implication is that white researchers are inferior.