Since its foundation in 2001, EANA (European Astrobiology Network Association, http://www.eana-net.eu/) has organized annual meetings to foster and strengthen the astrobiology community within Europe. The growth of the European astrobiology community over the years is reflected not only in the growing participation at the annual EANA meeting but also in the foundation of the graduate network AbGradE (Astrobiology Graduates in Europe, https://abgrade.eu/) with many activities, meetings and workshops organized since 2014, including several joint events with EPEC (the EuroPlanet Early Career network), as well as the foundation of the European Astrobiology Institute (EAI) in 2019.

The EANA Executive Council consists of national representatives from currently 21 European (and affiliated) countries with active astrobiology groups, networks or societies, as well as representatives of the early-career AbGradE network. The EANA network and especially the Executive Council therefore directly promote a broad and diverse representation of many career stages as well as nationalities including normally underrepresented countries. After more than two decades of a formal astrobiology network in Europe, it is time to explore and evaluate the actual obtained diversity within EANA and AbGradE with respect to nationality, gender and career status of our members based on our annual meeting participation, and to reflect on future measures to further improve the diversity and inclusiveness of our networks and events.

We find that while our annual events are very diverse with respect to career stage, gender and research disciplines, a few aspects leave room for improvement, including especially a more balanced representation of different countries with astrobiology research within Europe and beyond. We discuss different equality, diversity and inclusivity measures that can be implemented for future EANA and AbGradE meetings in Europe to better represent the full astrobiology community within our networks.

A prominent presence in the news media is important for interest groups. This article investigates the development in the diversity of interest group media attention over time. The analysis draws on a dataset of 19,000 group appearances in the Danish news media in the period 1984–2003. It demonstrates how diversity has risen continually over time, leading to a media agenda less dominated by labour and business and more by public interest groups and sectional groups. This development is related to the increasing political importance of the news media and the decline in group integration in public decision‐making processes. The article also shows how the development of group appearances is closely related to changes in media attention towards different policy areas.

In light of recent trends in the internationalisation of post-secondary education, the rising popularity of short-term study abroad programmes, and the persistent lack of diversity in study abroad, this article presents an option for a short-term, hybrid study abroad programme. The article highlights the Oregon University System Cuba programme and its use of a ‘double hybrid’ model utilising both in-person and on-line coursework and on-campus and study abroad courses aimed to internationalise educational opportunities statewide and to diversify populations participating in international programmes. Though early in its evolution, the ‘double hybrid’ model has much to offer educational institutions, faculty and students alike, either in its entirety or in part.

This article builds on the Linguistic Society of America's Statement on Race to argue that linguistics urgently needs an interdisciplinarily informed theoretical engagement with race and racism. To be adequate, a linguistic theory of race must incorporate the perspectives of linguistic researchers of different methodological approaches and racial backgrounds and must also draw on theories of race in neighboring fields, including anthropology, sociology, and psychology, as well as speech and hearing sciences, composition and literacy studies, education, and critical interdisciplinary race studies. The lack of comprehensive and up-to-date theoretical, analytical, and political understandings of race within linguistics not only weakens research by erasing, marginalizing, and misrepresenting racially minoritized groups, but it also diminishes the impact of the entire field by devaluing and excluding the intellectual contributions of researchers of color, whose work on this topic is rarely welcome within linguistics departments. The article therefore argues for a rethinking of both linguistic scholarship and linguistics as a discipline in more racially inclusive and socially just terms.

This article examines Canadian political science and responses to diversity both in terms of who is included in the profession and their reported experiences. Utilizing extant national surveys, including from the Canadian Political Science Association, the findings show that in comparison to the 1970s, the profession today is clearly more “diverse” both in terms of its demographics, as well as what is researched and taught. This in turn relates to changing perspectives affecting policy, practice and research both in Canada and internationally. However, as will also be shown, there are evident and persistent structural inequities in the Canadian academy and the discipline of political science that have deep roots in Canada. Of particular importance in explaining these patterns is Canada’s foundation and legacy as a settler-colony, a feature thrown into sharp relief in light of current efforts at “reconciliation” between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. It is therefore argued that the state of diversity in Canadian political science needs to be understood in relation to both evolving ideas as well as the historical formation of the Canadian state and social power.

This response builds upon ideas introduced in Charity Hudley et al.'s (2020) target article by focusing on the themes of excellence and racial justice. In addition to relying on previous academic work on race and racism, I also draw from my own experiences as a person of color in the field of linguistics and as a scholar who works with racially minoritized communities. The primary claims of this paper are that the field of linguistics as a whole benefits from broadening and deepening our conceptualizations of scholarly excellence and from consciously attending to the needs and concerns of scholars and community members from racially minoritized groups. To support these claims, I discuss ways in which institutional structures of universities hinder equity and inclusion by marginalizing contributions of scholars from racially minoritized groups and by promoting extractive and neocolonial work involving minoritized communities. I conclude by offering general principles that can serve as guides for fostering greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in university settings. These principles involve acknowledging present shortcomings, aligning the reward system to a broadened notion of excellence and to inclusion, and embracing creative alternatives.

In this article, I use Boltanski and Thévenot's (2006) work on “logics of justification” to make the case that diversity, defined broadly as engagement with otherness, has limited worth as a “civic argument” in the United States. I argue that “diversity talk” has not been effective in civic spheres because it does not challenge the underlying pluralist architecture of the US political system. Instead, diversity in the civic sphere is regarded as producing conflict or an apolitical “improvement in manners” (Rorty 1999) rather than as a mechanism for citizenship development. This diminishes the ability for diversity to enhance democratic citizenship by fostering the development of a type of civic wisdom necessary for effective decision making in a democratic society.

Area Studies, that is, academic work focused on a specific geographic area and its phenomena, exists in the form of study programmes, institutes and departments in many European universities and research centres. European political scientists preoccupied with theoretical abstraction have also engaged, within the frame of Area Studies, with the production of context-rich knowledge. Although Area Studies have followed distinctive and non-linear paths of development, this approach to the study of social science is present in a considerable number of academic spaces in Europe. A debate on the value of Area Studies is also active in the context of a discussion on its capacity to dismantle ethnocentrism in science. Despite the dynamism of this discussion, little has been done to explore empirically how Area Studies have contributed or not to the diversification of Political Science. This paper seeks to remedy that omission and analyse whether an Area Studies approach to the study of Political Science, in particular, European Political Science, has contributed or not to making the discipline more diverse. To address this question, the paper presents some considerations that emerge from a review of the literature and from interviews with twenty researchers working in the field of Political Science in two European countries: Germany and Portugal.

This paper explores the relationship between neighbourhood level density of civil society organisations (CSOs), diversity, and deprivation. We compare the UK and Sweden, two countries with different civil society traditions and welfare state regimes. We use data on formal civil society organisations to examine whether diverse neighbourhoods have lower levels of civil society infrastructure. In the UK, contrary to what could be expected from Putnam's assertion that diversity has a negative effect on trust, thus limiting civil society activities at the neighbourhood level, we observe a positive relationship between the density of CSOs and diversity. In Sweden, we find different patterns. First, we observe a negative correlation between CSO density and diversity. Second, we find lower density of formal CSOs in areas with high diversity and high economic disadvantage and higher density in areas characterised by low diversity and high disadvantage.

That effective leadership is crucial during global emergencies is uncontested. However what that leadership looks like, and how it plays out in different contexts is less straightforward. In representative democracy, diversity is considered to be a key element for true representation of the society. In addition, previous research has unequivocally demonstrated the positive impacts of gender equality in leadership. The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare some of the real world implications of gender inequalities in the leadership context. In this article, we examine the differential impacts of COVID-19 on women, and reflect on potential pathways for women's active participation.

Until the 1970s neither Australian nor New Zealand political studies gave much attention to issues of diversity. This reflected both the makeup of the profession and the majoritarian nature of the political systems that was the major object of its attention. We argue that feminist organising on both sides of the Tasman had led to greater pluralism within the discipline. Using a comparative institutional approach, we trace the relationship between organising within the professional associations and the acceptance of greater diversity of approach and standpoint. We find, however, that while both countries’ Associations have become somewhat more inclusive, a hierarchy of knowledge still exists that may prove an obstacle to feminist and Indigenous political scientists joining discipline-based departments and programmes.

To accomplish their goals, International Non-government Organizations (INGOs) manage a network of internal and external stakeholders across national boundaries while having limited authority under demanding circumstances. Consequently, INGOs often rely on normative management practices aimed at influencing discretionary behavior. Unfortunately, normative management can be difficult when INGO stakeholders perceive little common ground due to large functional, cultural, socioeconomic, and power differences. These dynamics raise an important question: How can INGOs manage internal and external stakeholders in a normative fashion when these stakeholders are remarkably diverse and may perceive little or no similarity among themselves? In response to this difficulty, we argue that effective diversity management is a key contributor of effective normative management, and we develop social cognitive theory aimed at managing the salience and meaning of social distinctions. We also provide initial guidance on adapting management practices when differences are large and when individual identities are exclusive.

This study investigated the question of how civil society groups cross political, cultural, social, economic, and language boundaries to find common ground and to act collectively in coalitions to effect international change. A set of constituents emerged in answer to the research question; Complementarity, Speed and Democracy, Rules of Engagement, Contingent Alliance, and Convergence. Convergence emerged as a central and unifying construct. Convergence is the uniting of people who are different, or even opposed, around a common cause. It is based on the presumption that diversity is critical to coalition success and that it needs be employed to leverage its many potential benefits. The analyses led to the conceptualization of the Convergence System, a model that employs global civil society (GCS) diversity to discern complementarity within GCS coalitions, to discover Points of Convergence, and to facilitate collective action toward shared objectives, thus enabling efficacious action by GCS within the international polity.

Japan combines demographic challenges of decreasing childbirths and an ageing population, yet political unwillingness to use immigration to ease labour market and caregiving shortages. Paying attention to gender, diversity, and inclusion would seem to be a ‘rational’ political choice. Although Prime Minister Abe (Abe II) understands the need to appear to be responding to Japanese women qua equal citizens, women remain more an ‘object’ of LDP policy than a substantive beneficiary. To improve his image, Abe has incorporated ‘Womenomics’ into his strategy of economic revitalisation; the result has been a rather incoherent blend of ‘equal participation’ and ‘women’s utilisation’. In 2016, the dearth of diversity and anti-feminist sentiment within Japanese politics continues to be mirrored in both passive and active ways within the discursive and institutional political climate, including within academia. It is largely premature to assume a shared normative or scientific commitment to inclusion and diversity in Japan. Japanese Political Science (JPS) is no exception, and this has obvious implications for what constitutes a ‘serious’ political issue worthy of study, what gets funded, who gets hired, and the extent to which critical debates within feminist political science (FSP) on gender, race, and diversity are taken seriously. In this article, I offer a preliminary evaluation of JPS in light of three indicators: the under-representation of women in Japanese academia generally and political science specifically; the access of FPS to large-scale government funding grants (2003–2013) and its impact on the discipline; and recent efforts by feminist political scientists in Tokyo to create a ‘home’ for debates on gender, diversity, and political representation. I conclude with a hopeful expectation that increasing numbers of political scientists in Japan will begin to genuinely problematise the dearth of diversity in Japanese politics and to approach this fundamental puzzle of Japanese democratisation with the intellectual curiosity that it deserves.

With the growth of third sector research, the field needs more dedicated discussion on how we study the third sector, not only the decisions in research design or data collection process but also the general research approaches and the way we analyze the data. In this introduction to the special issue of Voluntas Volume I, we discuss how the sector can foster a more inclusive and diverse research community for people, topics, and methods. We also discuss the implications of methodological pluralism, an organizing principle of a research community that fosters respect, appreciation, and empathy between its members. We conclude by calling for more empathetic, transparent, and accountable research.

Political theorists and scientists have published extensive scholarship on the political representation of the marginalised. Some notable and widely cited scholars include Jane Mansbridge, Anne Phillips, Iris M. Young, Suzanne Dovi, and Melissa Williams. They have mostly focused on the importance of representation of women and argue that such representation enhances the functioning of representative democracies. This strand of literature has made significant contributions to contemporary research, especially on studies showing how and why political representation matters. Underdiscussed, nonetheless, is how such classic studies should be taught in a classroom in the context of global movements, namely #BlackLivesMatter, #StopAsianHate, and #MeToo, where various marginalised identities intersect when subjected to oppression. We contest and strengthen some of these ideas in extant scholarship promoting diversity politics by taking intersectional and decolonial approaches. We advocate for prioritising intersectionality over diversity and for decolonising teaching political representation by centring the feminist works of BIPOC and Global South scholars. By challenging both the absence of minoritised women as political actors as well as scholars—as a matter of the production of knowledge and as political activism—we create an inclusive learning environment. We enable both the educators and students to reflect on their positionalities and furthermore achieve the long-term goal of equality in the classrooms, political institutions, and beyond.