Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study

Abstract Introduction The importance of including people affected by research (e.g., community members, citizens or patient partners) is increasingly recognized across the breadth of institutions involved in connecting research with action. Yet, the increasing rhetoric of inclusion remains situated in research systems that tend to reward traditional dissemination and uphold power dynamics in ways that centre particular (privileged) voices over others. In research explicitly interested in doing research with those most affected by the issue or outcomes, research teams need to know how to advance meaningful inclusion. This study focused on listening to voices often excluded from research processes to understand what meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, and asked what contributes to being or feeling tokenized. Methods In this deliberative dialogue study, 16 participants with experience of navigating social exclusions and contributing to research activities reflected on what makes for meaningful experiences of inclusion. Using a co‐production approach, with a diversely representative research team of 15 that included patient and community partners, we used critically reflective dialogue to guide an inclusive process to study design and implementation, from conceptualization of research questions through to writing. Results We heard that: research practices, partnerships and systems all contribute to experiences of inclusion or exclusion; the insufficiency or absence of standards for accountability amplifies the experience of exclusion; and inclusive practices require intention, planning, reflection and resources. Conclusions We offer evidence‐informed recommendations for the deeply relational work and practices for inclusivity, focused on promising practices for cultivating welcoming systems, spaces and relationships. Patient or Public Contribution This work reflects a co‐production approach, where people who use and are affected by research results actively partnered in the research process, including study design, data‐generating activities, analysis and interpretation, and writing. Several of these partners are authors of this manuscript.


| INTRODUCTION
Recognition of the pervasive contexts of inequities, including those amplified and widened by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19)   pandemic, 1 has fuelled urgency for public institutions, including universities, to advance social justice and inclusion.3][4] Such structures are revealed even in the definition of inclusion as 'the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded'. 5Inclusion efforts striving for equal access, however, do not necessarily equate to equal participation or influence; rather, they can ignore contexts of inequities and their causes.They also risk overlooking social systems of power that lead to more frequent, comfortable and authentic experiences of inclusion for some, and more frequent experiences of exclusion and tokenism (Tokenism is defined as including a voice in a project, but mostly ignoring it.A useful discussion of tokenism is available here: https:// blogs.ubc.ca/imhablog/2021/10/13/tokenism-seeing-it-fixing-itperspectives-from-patient-partners/) for others.
In the context of health research, considerations of participation and inclusion are central to its potential impact and usefulness.
Increasingly referred to as knowledge mobilization, 6 knowledge translation is a dynamic and iterative process of connecting knowledge generation with implementing health research evidence. 70][11] While complex, with many different definitions used to convey different characteristics or features, 12 IKT emphasizes shared decision-making.IKT's emphasis on co-production 13 therefore inherently involves including people outside of academia in processes of connecting knowledge with action.Strategies for 'engagement' are often proposed to generate evidence-based, responsive solutions that can mitigate tokenism [9][10][11] ; however, absent of specific equityand evidence-informed knowledge, skills and practices of inclusion, IKT can reinforce systems of inequity and exclusion. 14Yet, even in a review of literature on research partnerships focused on using consensus-building methods, little research or attention to practices of meaningful inclusion could be found in the literature. 15 part of a larger project exploring consensus methods in IKT, our research team was interested in how people describe and what contributes to meaningful experiences of inclusion, asking: For people who navigate social exclusions, what are their experiences with participating in IKT-related committees, partnerships, workshops or other events aimed at collective decision-making?What do people believe is important for leaders, facilitators or organizers of IKT to cultivate inclusion?

| METHODS
Co-production is a 'model of collaborative research that explicitly responds to knowledge user needs in order to produce research findings that are useful, useable, and used' and is characterized by shared decision-making throughout processes connecting research with action. 13Our process, from conceptualization, team building, to study design and writing, invited an evolving and iterative collaboration among a diversity of people and roles, including patient partners, community members, knowledge users, researchers and people most affected by the research.The team was intentionally inclusive of people who themselves navigate intersecting social exclusions.We worked collaboratively to conceptualize, design and implement the research, along with creating spaces for partnered analysis, interpretation and reporting of the study data.Our process was guided by principles for promoting equity in research and knowledge translation, 16 operationalized through a variety of mechanisms and practices, including holding frequent dialogue-based meetings scheduled in ways that made it possible for people to participate.This co-production study was grounded in the dialogic and transformative pedagogies of Shor and Freire, 17 Feire 18 and hooks 19 to guide deliberative dialogue-a method for co-producing knowledge(s) and responses to complex social issues and problems. 20This method uses relational facilitation approaches in a workshop-style setting to invite mutual understanding among a diversity of perspectives, [21][22][23] typically engaging people in advance by providing preparatory knowledge synthesis and questions.They are futurefacing and creative, convening people in the spirit of learning around a topic of key importance and relevance to themselves and/or their work.
In this study, preparatory materials included a brief plain language summary of scoping review findings, 15 questions to guide reflection and an invitation to use collage-making to express their understanding of inclusion. 24,25Using art-making as a predialogue reflective activity was grounded in both literature on the value of creative practices in research co-production 26  Our commitments to co-production and critical pedagogy were extended through this iterative and critically reflective process to support analysis, interpretation and writing.Critically reflective inquiry involves the 'conscious interrogation of the social, cultural, and political contexts of learning', 28 situating dialogue in the context of people's day-to-day lives and practices while unpacking assumptions and considering others' perspectives.Over the course of the study, and for more than a year after the last deliberative dialogue, all 16 members of our research team contributed to learning together through deliberation about the implications of what we heard from study participants.Meetings were generally facilitated by K. P., using reflexive and relational practices for supporting dialogue. 22Honouring the time, skills and expertise of team members, each meeting included an overview of progress.Meeting times, duration and structures were designed to respond to the diverse accessibility needs of each member of our team, accounting for a range of factors influencing opportunities to contribute (e.g., needs related to health and wellness, childcare, geography, time zones).We allowed sufficient time to begin with a check-in, respond to emergent issues, plan for next steps and close with a round of reflective comments and wishes from each contributor.We found that 1.5-2 h were needed for each meeting.

| Participants and recruitment
We sought participants who self-identified as: (a) navigating social exclusions related to race, ethnicity, gender, ableness, healthfulness, Indigeneity, sexual orientation, or other intersecting identities; and (b) had IKT-related experience(s) as partners on research projects, advisory teams, panels and committees.People were recruited within Canada by email, newsletters and social media.Each participant was invited to complete an anonymous 'perspectives' survey (see Table 1).
If people chose to create a collage, they were invited to upload their content electronically and complete an art release consent.Participants were offered a $50 honorarium for their time, which was estimated at between 2 and 4 h.

| Research ethics
This study underwent a harmonized ethical review by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H18-03416).
All participants provided written or verbal informed consent and consent was reconfirmed in dialogues.Among efforts to ensure relational accountability in our process were attention to language and accessibility (e.g., visual accessibility of study materials), as well as providing dedicated, individualized support to participants in advance of and through follow-up dialogues.

| RESULTS
A total of 16 participants (4-10 per event) from across Canada contributed to dialogues, in addition to five research team members.All research team members participated in the collaborative, dialogue-based process of analysis and interpretation.Of the 11 participants and 15 research team members who completed the 'perspectives survey', most self-described navigating multiple social exclusions.In Figure 1A,B, we show the diversity of perspectives reflected among participants (Figure 1A) and research team members (Figure 1B), using highlighted dots to highlight each person's unique intersectionality of experiences, T A B L E 1 Inclusion criteria and perspective survey.
To participate in this study, participants needed to: • Be 18 years of age or older • Be able to contribute to dialogue in English, either independently or with the support of a translator or interpreter Unless otherwise noted, data reflect an intersectionality of 'patient' or 'community' partner perspectives that, because of our ethical obligations and the dialogic nature of the data, cannot be reduced to a singular lens.
Dialogues generated many insights into the assumptions, practices and structures that contribute to meaningful inclusion.
Below, we organize dialogue results by how welcome in systems, spaces and relationships cultivates meaningful experiences of inclusion (Table 2).

| Welcoming systems
In all three dialogues, participants' reflections began with a focus on research systems, which were described as the structures, institutions, people, norms and values that enable research.Participants described these systems as rooted in colonialism and white supremacy that serve as complex determinants of the direction, standards and norms of research.
Deep appreciation for the complexity of power dynamics arose Self-reported perspectives are highlighted with a grey dot.Housing, experience navigating housing insecurity or homelessness; Indigenous, identify as First Nations, Métis or Inuit; LGQBT2S+, identify as lesbian, gay, queer, bisexual, trans and two spirit (or other); M, identify as man (no others reported); mental illness, experience navigating care for mental illness; other, experience with any other social exclusion, as defined by the person; PP, patient perspective, patient partner in integrated knowledge translation or related activities; racialized, identify as a visible minority; SES, experience in an excluded socioeconomic group; SU, experience with or related to substance use; V/I disability, experience living with a visible or invisible disability; W, identify as woman.
T A B L E 2 Themes and subthemes.

Main theme Subthemes
Welcoming Participants lamented the absence of mechanisms for reporting or evaluating their IKT-related experiences.Participants desired learning-focused and nonpunitive feedback systems for critical reflection that could support all people involved in IKT.

| Centring values, policies and norms to enable inclusion
Extending from these calls for accountability were reflections on values, policies and norms that could enable inclusion.Several participants expressed frustration with institutions and researchers' tendencies to overstate progress and overvalue mere appearances of inclusion.Participants believed academic institutions could place greater value on inclusion by embedding safe, accessible third parties, such as a neutral Ombudsperson.They also called for greater value to be placed on the time, trust and relationships required for meaningful inclusion.For example, one participant who identified as Indigenous described the reason for meaningful engagement as her life-long relationship with, and accountability to, community and future generations-wherein a lifetime of relational accountability could not be leveraged for a short-term project.
Participants also reflected on how standards of worthiness in academic institutions place the greatest value on individual prestige, funding and productivity.These entrenched norms were described as ways in which institutions work against meaningful inclusion.In all dialogues, participants reported frustration with the lack of attention, incentive, value and funding afforded to the time and relational work of building trusting relationships.We also heard compassion for the barriers researchers face in practicing more inclusive research practices, by virtue, for example, of funding requirements or norms that undervalue the costs and time required to cultivate inclusion.
Given the competitiveness of research funding, researchers who wish to cultivate welcome and inclusion must push against strong and deeply entrenched systems and norms that often do not value or directly oppose such practices.

| Welcoming spaces
Dialogues were rich with insights on what it takes to create a feeling of welcome and inclusion in research spaces, particularly emphasizing this feeling as having to do with interpersonal interactions.
We heard that inclusion did not have to be a grand gesture.
People shared the importance of humility, reflection and checking unconscious bias and assumptions as critical practices for inclusion.
Further, participants suggested that taken-for-granted assumptions from dominant, able-bodied, cis-gendered, privileged groups often place heavy burdens on people who are already navigating multiple systems of disadvantage.They asserted that partnering and relational practices shape the degree of inclusivity possible in any kind of research process.Accessibility considerations were extended to the taken-for-granted assumptions about meeting expectations and spaces that serve as consistent barriers to meaningful inclusion.
Participants reflected that these assumptions translate into unfair burdens in, for example, expectations of preparatory reading,

| Welcoming relationships
Many reflections about what contributed to meaningful experiences of inclusion connected interpersonal interactions and intrapersonal characteristics, practices and skills of people in positions of influence (e.g., researchers, decision-makers, academic leaders).This included a desire for authentic relationships, commitment to self-awareness and self-reflection and intentional efforts to enact policies and practices that establish and sustain inclusion.
In one dialogue, participants explored the rhetoric of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) as often feeling superficial.They described the effects of this superficiality as generating burden for those 'filling a seat'.
0][31] In academic settings, the effects of systemic inequity and exclusion are well documented, for example, [32][33][34] as academic settings scramble to make public statements to declare their virtue as institutions that uphold EDI, 35,36  We also heard that meaningful inclusion is about honouring and upholding dignity in ways that prioritize genuine welcome, embrace humility and listening, and dismantle hierarchies.Planning places of welcome was described as central to cultivating an environment of inclusivity, where room is made for many voices.This result resonated with one our research team members who works with people who have spinal cord injuries.They described creating places of welcome as involving many practices, from removing physical barriers to participation (e.g., chairs in meeting rooms) to practical barriers to participation (e.g., avoiding early-morning meetings).
Whether for a specific population, like people with spinal cord injury or not, it is clear that creating a place of welcome necessitates budget and time for adequate, responsive compensation and practical support.
Dialogue results emphasize that meaningful inclusion is far more than filling a seat at the table.[40] Arnstein's Ladder of Participation described eight 'rungs' to represent progressive degrees of less or more meaningful citizen participation, ranging from nonparticipation to degrees of tokenism and degrees of citizen power. 41 and named racism, paternalism and resistance to power redistribution as major obstacles to meaningful inclusion. 41The concerns raised decades ago by Arnstein and many other critical scholars before and after remain compelling.
The dialogues in this study touched on issues that can be situated in organizational cultures of white supremacy, which elevate individualism, perfectionism, urgency and quantity over quality, for example, 42,43 research and research systems reflect broader societal intersectionalities, wherein social, cultural and economic positionalities (e.g., race, ethnicity, sex, gender, ableness, Indigeneity, sexual orientation) serve to perpetuate social exclusions.The effect of these intersecting positionalities is unearned advantages for some, generating a power dynamic that shapes how decision-making and communicative power is shared and/or balanced within the research partnership and project. 44Despite the popularity of EDI as a buzz phrase, its rhetoric can do more to distract than mobilize systems-level transformations needed to combat tokenism and foster meaningful engagement. 36A rhetoric of EDI might sound good and serve to garner public support and avoid scrutiny, but superficial efforts to simply incorporate diverse bodies into oppressive systems are specious steps toward systems that need to genuinely honour, respect and create space for diversity in perspectives and voice.
Much of the rhetoric of inclusion asks 'patient' and 'community' partners to be vulnerable and share very intimate details of their lives when they are invited to participate.Not only is this vulnerability unequally demanded it is often asked with haste so that teams don't privilege (e.g., male, hearing) 45 Work undertaken to be inclusive in this environment of 'privileging privilege' can be viewed as radical.Challenging systems of privilege is challenging work, requiring deep attentiveness to the mental models and practices that hold those systems in place. 4acticing inclusion invites critical examination of climates of privilege and advantage.Attentiveness to how systems of power create unearned advantages is as important, and perhaps more important, than redressing systemic disadvantage. 45,46Advancing meaningful inclusion is, therefore, not about requiring disadvantaged people to share their stories and justify their place at a table, but rather, about eliminating the structural advantages that lead to social exclusions.It is the responsibility of power-holders to recognize and remove the features of the environment and relationships that generate inequities.and disseminate research. 47Yet, research systems are not set up to make these changes and are not designed around transparency or accountability.

SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTS
Several specific recommendations arose from our team's critically reflective dialogues on study results and implications.As we worked with and contemplated this data, we found Brofenbrenner's social-ecological model 48 useful for its emphasis on intrapersonal, interpersonal and systems interactions that can contribute to meaningful experiences of inclusion by nurturing welcome.Below, we offer a working conceptual model and set of promising practices that directly respond to study data and also to the experiences and knowledge(s) of those on our team-particularly those who shared an 'insider' perspective.By 'promising', we mean that there is both theory and evidence which can support and advance meaningful inclusive practices.Figure 2 shows: (a) the dynamic and interactive nature of macro-, meso-, and microlevel of research ecosystems; and (b) promising relational practices that can be extended at each level to cultivate meaningful inclusion.We use the image of a progressive spiral spanning each of the levels of ecosystems, and the kinds of welcoming practices at each level, to demonstrate the relational connections between each.Table 3 provides more detail on how to enact each of these relational practices.

| Strengths and limitations
A unique strength of this study was the use of dialogue-based methods for generating, analysing and interpreting data.Distinct from extractive, one-directional approaches to qualitative analysis, 27 we created a rigorous process that balanced integrity in methodology with a collaborative process that enriched contemplation of research findings in the context of real-world experiences.Infusing the analysis and interpretation process with critically reflective dialogue among the research team ensured a diversity of perspectives was always present.As a result, we were able to dive into the data with nuanced, rich and applied lenses, exploring both meanings and implications in ways that allowed practical recommendations to emerge.Importantly, attentiveness to reflexive and relational practices in the process invited members of the research team to consider direct, immediate implications in their own practices.Our coproduction approach was, in this way, a transformative, challenging  'researcher gaze' on our data by creating an inclusive, critically reflective dialogue-based process of 'writing through' our results.
Another consideration in our process was the use of a virtual environment for dialogue.This was necessary because of the pandemic-related public health restrictions faced at the time and could have played a role in the experience, power dynamics and facilitation of the dialogues.The virtual environment may have appealed specifically to people who were comfortable in such an environment and may have limited the participation of some people with less familiarity or access to computers.While we cannot know for certain how the virtual space may have played a facilitating or inhibiting role on experiences of inclusion, we heard a high degree of satisfaction from participants and were affirmed by their expressions of interest in follow-up activities.When we asked participants about who needs to hear about the results of this study, the overwhelming response was to share these results widely across diverse settings and groups.For example, one participant responded, 'Everyone!Everywhere!These are such important things to say, and I hope you will share it widely and keep inviting us to be part of the conversation!'

| CONCLUSION
Paulo Freire, whose work was influential in the design of this study, spoke in existential ways about the importance of inclusive societies.
He argued that 'dialogue phenomenizes and historicizes essential human intersubjectivity; it is relational, and, in it, no one has absolute initiative.Dialogue participants admire the same world; they move away from it and coincide with it; in it they are placed and opposed … dialogue is not a historical product; it is history itself'. 18As researchers or leaders in research systems, the world is facing a moment of possibility, where collective attention on issues of equity and inclusion is perhaps higher than ever before.The work pushes against systems, structures and norms that are designed to be tenaciously exclusive.It involves risk-taking and humility, where all people involved can learn from mistakes and embrace not knowing.
We invite readers to remain grounded in the hopefulness of Freire and others who believed in more equitable futures, and to constantly ask themselves and others, in every possible interaction that they encounter in their sphere of influence, what practical steps they can take to cultivate meaningful inclusion in research ecosystems.This article offers practical steps for people situated in a variety of roles across research systems and settings, providing a beginning guide for creating more authentic inclusion.
and our previous experience with this method as a means of generating shared insights and sparking reflective dialogue around complex topics.A series of 2-h Zoom-based virtual dialogues were held over a 2-week period in March 2021, with two follow-up public knowledge dissemination events 6 weeks later.Dialogues were guided by an expert lead facilitator and supported by two note-takers, a designated support person, and a logistic facilitator.Dialogues centred around an intentionally open and exploratory question, asking what does inclusion look and feel like?Participants were invited to share their collages, which served to spark dialogue and invite others' reflective responses.As a team of people who also navigate intersecting social exclusions, the research team were active listeners and contributors.Dialogues were audio-recorded.Data sets included audio recordings, note-takers' notes, Zoom chat box contributions, collages shared by participants and facilitators' notes.Data were analysed in NVivo 12, balancing analytical lenses to look for deep contextualization while attending to both the richness and silences in data. 27Preliminary analysis categorized and summarized large volumes of data (by A. H.2 and K. P.), which were then offered in a report of results circulated to participants for comment and shared in follow-up dialogues open to all members of the research team and all participants for validation and discussion about practice implications.Analysis was further nuanced by bringing emergent findings forward to critically reflective dialogues with the broader research team, 27 where those responsible for the time-intensive work of moving through the data could listen for direction, and return to the categorizingsummarizing process in response.
repeatedly and participants noted the importance of cultivating and nurturing relational practices and inclusion, including recognizing and reflecting on positionality, power, and worldview.Despite valuing these practices, participants frequently reflected on how 'inclusion' is often spoken about rhetorically, while remaining superficial or reinforcing dominant colonial frameworks.One person commented, I really struggle with it when people say diversity and inclusivity because you can still have a colonized mind and colonial thinking.Participants commented on the tendency for positions of influence to be occupied by 'experts', reproducing and celebrating F I G U R E 1 (A) Intersecting perspectives reflected among participants, with each icon representing one person's self-reported positionalities.(B) Intersecting perspectives reflected among research team members, with each icon representing one person's self-reported positionalities.

4 |
DISCUSSION This dialogic study deepened our understanding what authentic, meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, illuminating the importance of working across multiple levels of research and research systems to grow collective awareness and capacity.Results of this deliberative dialogue study affirm long-standing critiques of the insidious and tenacious ways in which social systems and structures serve to perpetuate exclusion, specific to research-related settings.A rich body of critical scholarship has long called for transformations in social systems, structures and practices of social exclusion, and offers

'
waste' too much time on introductions.Even researchers who occupy positions of power and advantage relative to their research partners can be situated vulnerably in research systems.Researchers who use participatory methods or IKT approaches are often pushing against hierarchies and systems of unearned advantage for ablebodied, cis-gendered, white, men.Wallerstein et al. argue that despite its values, participatory research still resides within inequitable research hierarchies.Funding, technical expertise, and institutional resources are overwhelmingly controlled by funding agencies, academic administrators, and (to a lesser extent) researchers.Most research is conducted by majority-white institutions led by white and other PIs with normative University systems, broadly, offer little support for researchers to work toward this idea.Academic institutions can do more to recognize the value and realities of more inclusive research processes, which might not conform to traditional metrics of success (e.g., volume of publications vs. quality of relationships or responsiveness of research).Funding agencies could do more to design competitions that allow for sufficient flexibility and time for relational practices and enable more inclusive and flexible compensation options.Cultivating meaningful inclusion requires practicing integrity in our commitments to transformational change and challenges the way researchers (and others in positions of influence) think and do.47It invites us to shift the way inclusion practices are documented and afforded valued space in publications, how researchers demonstrate their inclusion practices in tenure and promotion packages, in how peer review prioritizes the demonstration of meaningful inclusion, in how funding agencies and institutions recognize and value inclusive practices, and in how researchers and research systems are held to account.Researchers themselves gain from including others in their work and are changed by it.It can shift the way they design, deliver assumption and raised awareness of how each of us can more authentically practice inclusion.While we do not assert our recommendations are in any way exhaustive or universally representative, the dialogue-based processes involved in this study means they are grounded in a deep respect for a diversity of knowledge (practice-based, experiential, cultural, organizational, systems, disciplinary, among others), experiences, and perspectives.Despite efforts to practice inclusivity in our recruitment, we did not reach all groups who experience social exclusions.Perhaps because of the topical emphasis on IKT, or perhaps a reflection of systems of privilege that may serve to make issues of inclusion less of a pressing issue for men, the vast majority of research team and participants self-identified as women.Members of the research team who had expertise in research analysis were tasked with working through raw data from dialogues and preparing summaries for participants to review and validate.While this places the time-intensive work of synthesis on people who were paid to do so, it means that the interpretation of our data is influenced by their lens and their positionality.We mitigated the potential for a heavy F I G U R E 2 Cultivating welcoming systems, places and relationships from micro-through macrolevel of context.T A B L E 3 Promising relational practices for moving toward meaningful inclusion across research ecosystems.
For example, we heard from people who navigate the world with an invisible disability that their ability to participate in research requires ongoing dedicated support, noting that these costs were often seen as 'too much' or overtly excluded from research budgets.When budgets are not adequately allocated for services, for example, participants suggested that costs are generally passed off like a 'hot potato'.This passing off of costs was observed as It is usually not paid … [but] everything I do in my spare time needs to be directed to me making some kind of money … meetings are set up on the free time for people who have the time for them … usually at lunch then there is no food, you gotta find your way to feed yourself … food is equity piece of saying I am me it means translating first in my head then [back to English] so it takes twice as long … creates a lot of extra work that you don't necessarily understand… Above all we heard that all researchers, institutions and systems can cultivate, learn and apply more inclusive research practices.Participants frequently spoke to the importance and impact of practical engagement supports on research and IKT relationships, noting the need for teams to be attentive, reflective and responsive to diverse needs.themselves, we the non-disabled in the room … missed their input and their conversation because they [the organizers] did not stop to think that with the number of people that were there and the number of tables they should have had two interpreters per table to allow the proper mix and mingling of the deaf inclusion requires intentionality… Participants also reflected on how compensation norms and practices shape experiences of inclusion, noting that vast salary inequities or expectations of volunteerism create differential costs of participation.One participant described her experience asking for compensation for a position on an advisory committee, A lot of the advisory groups I've been part of, I've done for free … .So I decided to ask for compensation for the chair role I had … you would have thought that I asked for the moon!… they 'so and so', who is a big wig in research, 'they didn't ask for an honorarium!'… up' in service of 'equity, diversity and inclusion', Whenever there is a call for participation, call for diversity … I usually feel a natural responsibility to be there because, if there is no one there from [my identity group] … it looks like nobody wants to be there.
few examples go beyond politically correct rhetoric.
Speak about reflexive practices in academic meetings, assessment environments and peer-review settings ○ Develop relational practice skills amongst your team, trainees and students ○ Write about your team's commitment to reflexive practices in your publications, using supplemental files if needed ○ Build expectations for reflexive practices into mentoring plans and peer-review practices ○ Demonstrate and model the value of reflexive practices by including statements about what you are doing, why it matters and observed impacts or actions taken in teaching philosophy statements, annual reports or other demonstrations of academic contribution Practice deep attentiveness and listening for direction Demonstrate the interest and value you hold for others' perspectives Practice humility by adopting a position of curiosity and learning (rather than knowing) Make time to develop relationships and resist the pressure to rush Accept and make room for the dynamic, nonlinear nature of relationships Build relationships up and out, networking broadly to reach other individuals, particularly those voices that are not usually heard Spend time with and in communities to learn and respond to contexts, needs and hopes as they understand them Build capacity and agency for inclusive Build collective capacity (knowledge and skills) to recognize, understand and productively mitigate power so that it is distributed in ways that promote inclusion (e.g., take