Diversity Issue with Edited Collection

[Dr_Badger]

I am co-editor of an edited volume that is currently in production. The prospectus will be reviewed in March, and the manuscript will go out to reviewers in mid to late summer. We started with a more diverse group, but a couple of authors have dropped out of the project for various reasons. As of today, all of the contributors are white.

I don't want to publish an all-white volume, but I am stumped regarding how to move forward. Should we solicit contributions from scholars of color whose work is cited in the volume? My instinct is to frame it as "We'd like to invite you to contribute since your work is cited by other authors in the collection".

Should I come out and say that we are soliciting work from non-white contributors, or does that suggest tokenism? I want to bring diversity to this project, but I don't want colleagues to feel like add-ons.  They would not be add-ons. Our original vision was to seek diverse contributions, and withdrawals due to various circumstances shifted the balance of contributors.

[Cheerful]

Sounds rather insulting for the new invitees:  "Well, yeah, here is the list of people already contributing chapters, and no, you weren't invited for the original ms. but we'd really like your contribution now because _______."  Because, why?

Second, how would you feel if all of the authors you have left were "nonWhite?"  Would you feel compelled to solicit some White authors?  Of course, I don't know the subject of your book or if that matters.

EDIT:  This topic belongs in Research & Scholarship, not Service & Administration.

[mamselle]

The real difficulty is that you started with an imbalance, if only two withdrawals put you out of compliance with your own standards for balance.

Having worked on a publication where we had to balance several dimensions like this (religious affiliation, gender, ethnic diversity, class and academic levels, etc.) it is tricky and it's something that's hard to manage overall.

If, in the wider scope of things, your other publications are more diversified, one issue that is out-of-true is not going to be such a serious problem for the optics of the issue (which do, indeed matter; I am firmly in agreement that a univocal representation becomes an echo-chamber which is itself distorting).

One thing that can help is if you ask the folks who withdrew whom they'd recommend for a replacement. Then a) it wouldn't be you "choosing someone as second-best" (which can be a sensitive point, of course), but b) a colleague of theirs who's recommended them (so, a plus, not a minus).

You could also see if some of your other writers have people with whose viewpoints they'd like to see their work be put into dialogue. Again, they do the recommending, not you, and you have both the diversity and the connections with other pieces in your project.

And at least you did start out with two, not just one, voice representing the segment of the landscape you were trying to depict. That would be a more serious form of tokenism--never isolate diverse voices so that they are made to stand for all those of the class/race/group you're seeking to have represented, it's most unfair.

But it looks like you already had that in hand, they just both happened to drop out.

(Unless--do ask yourself, just to be sure--did those two voices drop out for some specific reason, as in, did they feel unwelcome or unheard in some way? Make sure you find out and address that issue, if so. You don't want a repeat scene if that's the case, you'll just have a revolving door otherwise.)

M.

[Dr_Badger]

Cheerful -- we had no invitees for the original ms. We issued a CFP and reviewed proposals.

[Dr_Badger]

Mamselle -- thank you. I very much like the idea of asking authors to recommend diverse viewpoints with whom their work might be put into dialogue. I'm reflecting on some of the other points that you made, such as why authors of color withdrew from the collection, why scholars of color responded to the CFP in the first place, or why there are so few scholars of color in this particular area of research.

[Dr_Badger]

Thanks, Cheerful -- looks like I posted in the wrong section.

[Hegemony]

Why would you tell them "We want you because you're non-white" or even "We want you because you're cited"? Just invite them. Normal invitations to contribute to volumes don't justify the invitation with "Here is the category you're filling" — it's assumed that you're asking them because they're expert in the field.

Although non-white people are good to have represented, you might also look at your other categories. Do you have equal numbers of men and women? And in volumes I edit, I try not to stick with scholars from the U.S. — scholars from other parts of the world add diverse viewpoints as well. If your contributors are all white men from the U.S., that's probably leaving out some people who should be included.

[Hibush]

Did they drop out because they wanted to spend their energy on things that have more professional value to them? That is the flip side.

[hungry_ghost]

I am co-editor of an edited volume that is currently in production. The prospectus will be reviewed in March, and the manuscript will go out to reviewers in mid to late summer.

Not responding to your question, but a clarification: your edited volume is in PREPARATION. It is most certainly not "in production." "In production" is the stage that happens after the ms has passed review and all revisions are complete. In production means that the final manuscript is in the hands of the press, and the work of producing the book (copyediting, proofs, indexing, etc) is all that remains.
If you plan to solicit new contributors, you need to use proper terminology so as not to confuse them.
In preparation ... in review ... in revision ... in production.
Good luck.

[Parasaurolophus]

I've moved it for you, but also wanted to echo mamselle's excellent points.

[Dr_Badger]

Although non-white people are good to have represented, you might also look at your other categories. Do you have equal numbers of men and women? And in volumes I edit, I try not to stick with scholars from the U.S. — scholars from other parts of the world add diverse viewpoints as well. If your contributors are all white men from the U.S., that's probably leaving out some people who should be included.

Women, LGBTQIA+ people, and people from different geographical regions are very well-represented among authors.

Why would I tell them that my specific purpose is to recruit BIPOC authors? Because I have been told when working on projects in other contexts that efforts to recruit BIPOC scholars should be very transparent and explicit: We are specifically recruiting BIPOC scholars. I see your point that this is not the best approach in this context.

[Dr_Badger]

I am co-editor of an edited volume that is currently in production. The prospectus will be reviewed in March, and the manuscript will go out to reviewers in mid to late summer.

Not responding to your question, but a clarification: your edited volume is in PREPARATION. It is most certainly not "in production." "In production" is the stage that happens after the ms has passed review and all revisions are complete. In production means that the final manuscript is in the hands of the press, and the work of producing the book (copyediting, proofs, indexing, etc) is all that remains.
If you plan to solicit new contributors, you need to use proper terminology so as not to confuse them.
In preparation ... in review ... in revision ... in production.
Good luck.

Thank you. It is in preparation. I will use this terminology moving forward.

[Dr_Badger]

Did they drop out because they wanted to spend their energy on things that have more professional value to them? That is the flip side.

Yes, because a chapter in an edited collection is not worth much for tenure and promotion.

[Hibush]

Did they drop out because they wanted to spend their energy on things that have more professional value to them? That is the flip side.

Yes, because a chapter in an edited collection is not worth much for tenure and promotion.

This is an aspect well worth keeping in mind with DEI efforts. What is the ultimate goal for your institution or discipline? In which important roles are various groups underrepresented relative to the optimum for that goal? 

Because of the arithmetic, some of our less-critical activities will be disproportionately underrepresented if the more-critical ones appropriately have better representation.

[Dr_Badger]

Did they drop out because they wanted to spend their energy on things that have more professional value to them? That is the flip side.

Yes, because a chapter in an edited collection is not worth much for tenure and promotion.

This is an aspect well worth keeping in mind with DEI efforts. What is the ultimate goal for your institution or discipline? In which important roles are various groups underrepresented relative to the optimum for that goal? 

Because of the arithmetic, some of our less-critical activities will be disproportionately underrepresented if the more-critical ones appropriately have better representation.

Thank you, HIBUSH -- I hadn't considered that when I wrote the original post.