Psychologists can and must weigh in on critical social issues. The American Psychological Association (APA) engages in policy- and advocacy-related work and “strives for an accessible, equitable, and inclusive psychology that promotes human rights, fairness, and dignity for all” (APA, 2021, p. 6). The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has also consistently encouraged industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology’s role outside the formal boundaries of our profession, highlighting prosocial and humanitarian applications of psychology even prior to becoming a nongovernmental organization with special consultative status to the United Nations in 2011. The recognition of and emphasis on the prosocial side of I-O psychology is present throughout SIOP’s publications, including the Frontiers series (e.g., Olson-Buchanan et al., Reference Olson-Buchanan, Koppes Bryan and Foster Thompson2013), recurring content in TIP (e.g., Stuart Carr’s “Quo Vadis,” the “Spotlight on Humanitarian Work Psychology,” and reports from the SIOP United Nations Committee), and prior focal articles in this journal (e.g., Gloss et al., Reference Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru and Oestereich2017). A recent issue focused on volunteerism (Tippins et al., Reference Tippins, Hakel, Grabow, Kolmstetter, Moses, Oliver and Scontrino2023) and the integration of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into our vision for the field (Mullins & Olson-Buchanan, Reference Mullins and Olson-Buchanan2023) speaks to the continued centrality of our social mission and vision.
Our position expands upon this recent work. In the current legal context, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives cannot be restricted to our formal institutional structures, nor should they be approached independently of a broader strategic understanding of the field of psychology and societal forces. Consider the United Nations SDGs: DEI, and threats to DEI in our education system, have direct relevance to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Perhaps the most critical, though, is SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). DEI efforts across industries lead to educational, financial, and health benefits (Dotson & Nuru-Jeter, Reference Dotson and Nuru-Jeter2012; Milem et al., Reference Milem, Chang and Antonio2005; Nelson, Reference Nelson2002; Valantine & Collins, Reference Valantine and Collins2015), making a compelling business case for partnerships.
More than I-O
Although the focus of SDG 17 is global, cross-organizational, trans-industry partnerships, other partnerships are also vital. As Gilbert (Reference Gilbert2002) noted, “psychologists often ignore work outside their own laboratories, usually ignore work outside their own sub-specialties, and almost always ignore work outside their own disciplines” (p. 3). DEI-relevant work abounds across areas of psychology, including social psychology (e.g., Schwarzenthal et al., Reference Schwarzenthal, Schachner, Juang and van de Vijver2020), clinical psychology (e.g., Galán et al., Reference Galán, Bowdring, Tung, Sequeira, Call, Savell, Boness and Northrup2023), counseling psychology (e.g., Shin et al., Reference Shin, Welch, Kaya, Yeung, Obana, Sharma, Vernay and Yee2017), and many others. We cannot afford to ignore relevant work and must actively seek partners whose work strengthens our own. As detailed in Follmer et al. (Reference Follmer, Sabat, Jones and King2024), the threat to DEI (in education and beyond) reflects a highly structured and coordinated attack. It therefore requires nothing less than a highly structured and coordinated response.
A key element of Follmer et al.’s suggestions for educational institutions is to create “volunteer organizations outside of formal organizational structures that could continue to support DEI efforts with less governmental oversight” (p. 34). Our experience suggests that partnering with psychologists whose training, research, and practice diverges from that of I-O psychologists provides a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to identifying and implementing solutions to support diverse students and faculty in times of upheaval. In this commentary, we describe the work of voluntary department-level committees at our institution and the initiatives undertaken and benefits derived from the committees’ work. These committees comprise faculty from clinical, counseling, and I-O backgrounds, and we primarily focus on a committee that also includes graduate students.
More than admissions
A prominent threat to DEI in the education sector is the Supreme Court ruling that race cannot be considered in higher education admission decisions. The suggestion of an alternative focus on diversity in lived experience, which may result from race-related experience and be detailed in a personal essay, is consistent with a practice adopted in our clinical doctoral program some time ago. However, this reflects only one piece of the holistic approach to integrating DEI into the culture of our department (which we expect is the case at many institutions). Central to continuing to support diverse students, diverse faculty, and work related to DEI is to build and sustain a culture that supports students and faculty from all backgrounds and of all identities. To that end, we have implemented a voluntary committee structure, beginning with the Psychology Diversity Advisory Committee (PsyDAC).
The PsyDAC is a voluntary group of psychology faculty and graduate students who work together to support the School of Psychology’s (SoP) mission to “educate students in the science of behavior and mental processes with sensitivity toward the diversity of all people” (School of Psychology, n.d.) and commitment to “embrace and value the contributions of diverse people… inspire, educate, and prepare our students by supporting, nurturing, and developing the attitudes and skills to competently serve our diverse community, with special emphasis on social justice” (School of Psychology, n.d.). In this context, PsyDAC aims to (a) monitor the DEI climate within the SoP, (b) promote and disseminate information and resources related to DEI, and (c) advise and make recommendations to the SoP related to DEI issues. The group is student driven with a subcommittee structure that includes a student lead and a faculty advisor for each subcommittee. Reoccurring projects include an annual graduate student climate survey, Difficult Dialogues workshops that train students to have productive conversations about polarizing topics, robust PsyDAC student engagement in our graduate program’s Interview and Information Day, and volunteering and fundraising for community partners. This past year, a team of faculty and graduate students on PsyDAC organized a grant-funded speaker series designed to enhance diversity-focused education and training for students and faculty. Successful advocacy projects have included advocating for diversifying faculty in the SoP, advocating for DEI to be included in promotion and tenure guidelines for SoP faculty, and advocating for an annual, extracurricular diversity learning experience for graduate students.
PsyDAC actively advises the SoP on issues related to DEI and in recent years has used the graduate student climate survey data to make recommendations. In turn, the SoP has taken these recommendations seriously and enacted numerous changes. These include adaptations to our graduate student orientation, which now incorporates sessions with representatives from diversity-focused centers on campus, and another in which students and faculty members work together to define and discuss how to create a supportive and inclusive community climate. This latter session, which is cofacilitated by PsyDAC students and faculty, begins with the SoP mission statement to frame our values (e.g., diversity, psychological science) and aims (e.g., to build a more equitable and just society). New graduate students are introduced to communication strategies for challenging situations that include a balance of cultural humility and self-advocacy. Faculty and students discuss—first in small groups and then as a whole—ideas for how to foster a supportive community. Themes from these discussions are used to form “community agreements” that are subsequently shared in an online repository, which also includes information about campus DEI and related resources.
A second set of adaptations centers on greater integration of graduate students into the fabric of our department. This includes appointing a graduate student member to all faculty hiring committees, having a student representative of PsyDAC at monthly SoP meetings, having PsyDAC students report out on climate survey results and related recommendations at a SoP meeting each spring, and creating an anonymous online portal for students to submit concerns throughout the school year so that they need not wait for the annual survey to provide feedback.
In recent years, a second voluntary faculty organization, the Culture Committee (informally known as “Culture Club”), was developed to support the administration and oversight of activities that foster a positive and supportive culture among faculty, staff, and students in the SoP. This frees PsyDAC to continue to focus on its core mission and student-driven initiatives. Culture Club efforts include helping to enact many of the PsyDAC recommendations listed above; encouraging and supporting DEI education for faculty (e.g., training on inclusive classroom practices); collaborating with PsyDAC and other student groups to host regular (at least once a semester) social gatherings to build community among faculty, staff, and students; and creating a faculty/staff climate survey that parallels the graduate student survey. Just as the graduate student climate survey has led to recommendations and changes, so too has the faculty/staff climate survey.
Finally, the creation of a fund whose purpose is to support DEI-related activities independent of state or other funding was recently achieved. As part of a broad set of budget-related restructuring activities, our I-O master’s program was closed as of May 2023. The program had, over its existence, engaged in numerous projects (including some DEI related) with local organizations, and had accepted donations from clients to help support graduate student research and conference travel. With the program’s closure, the final graduating class was given the opportunity to determine how the remaining funds might be used; the students unanimously voted that the fund be reallocated to the PsyDAC and used to support DEI-related activities. This fund should allow alumni to specifically allocate donations to support DEI initiatives in the SoP during the university’s annual fundraising season.
All of these activities have the potential to impact recruitment and admissions, but none of them rely on data gathered during the admissions process to do so. They reflect our holistic commitment to DEI, which cannot be legislated.
Looking forward
Based on our experience, we recommend that other programs and institutions seek ways to encourage voluntary partnerships among faculty with diverse specialties and more broadly among faculty, staff, and graduate students. Such collaboration can help to build a climate in which DEI is lived, enhancing resilience against external threats. We stop short of prescribing exactly our initiatives because every institution will have different needs and benefit from unique solutions. However, we believe the collaborative work we have undertaken has the potential to spur further discussion, allow other institutions to craft their own structures and procedures, and empower faculty, staff, and students to engage with one another beyond the boundaries of their formal roles. Allowing DEI to continue to be part of our collective lived experience is consistent with the mission and values of SIOP, the APA, and the United Nations. The stronger and more numerous our partnerships, the more capable we will be to overcome the threats before us.
Open access
