Professional organizations in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) can use demographic data to quantify recruitment and retention (R&R) of underrepresented groups within their memberships. However, variation in the types of demographic data collected can influence the targeting and perceived impacts of R&R efforts - e.g., giving false signals of R&R for some groups. We obtained demographic surveys from 73 U.S.-affiliated STEM organizations, collectively representing 712,000 members and conference-attendees. We found large differences in the demographic categories surveyed (e.g., disability status, sexual orientation) and the available response options. These discrepancies indicate a lack of consensus regarding the demographic groups that should be recognized and, for groups that are omitted from surveys, an inability of organizations to prioritize and evaluate R&R initiatives. Aligning inclusive demographic surveys across organizations will provide baseline data that can be used to target and evaluate R&R initiatives to better serve underrepresented groups throughout STEM. Methods We surveyed 164 STEM organizations (73 responses, rate = 44.5%) between December 2020 and July 2021 with the goal of understanding what demographic data each organization collects from its constituents (i.e., members and conference-attendees) and how the data are used. Organizations were sourced from a list of professional societies affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, (n = 156) or from social media (n = 8). The survey was sent to the elected leadership and management firms for each organization, and follow-up reminders were sent after one month. The responding organizations represented a wide range of fields: 31 life science organizations (157,000 constituents), 5 mathematics organizations (93,000 constituents), 16 physical science organizations (207,000 constituents), 7 technology organizations (124,000 constituents), and 14 multi-disciplinary organizations spanning multiple branches of STEM (131,000 constituents). A list of the responding organizations is available in the Supplementary Materials. Based on the AAAS-affiliated recruitment of the organizations and the similar distribution of constituencies across STEM fields, we conclude that the responding organizations are a representative cross-section of the most prominent STEM organizations in the U.S. Each organization was asked about the demographic information they collect from their constituents, the response rates to their surveys, and how the data were used. Survey description The following questions are written as presented to the participating organizations. Question 1: What is the name of your STEM organization? Question 2: Does your organization collect demographic data from your membership and/or meeting attendees? Question 3: When was your organization’s most recent demographic survey (approximate year)? Question 4: We would like to know the categories of demographic information collected by your organization. You may answer this question by either uploading a blank copy of your organization’s survey (linked provided in online version of this survey) OR by completing a short series of questions. Question 5: On the most recent demographic survey or questionnaire, what categories of information were collected? (Please select all that apply)

Disability status Gender identity (e.g., male, female, non-binary) Marital/Family status Racial and ethnic group Religion Sex Sexual orientation Veteran status Other (please provide)

Question 6: For each of the categories selected in Question 5, what options were provided for survey participants to select? Question 7: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about data privacy and confidentiality? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 8: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about intended data use? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 9: Who maintains the demographic data collected by your organization? (e.g., contracted third party, organization executives) Question 10: How has your organization used members’ demographic data in the last five years? Examples: monitoring temporal changes in demographic diversity, publishing diversity data products, planning conferences, contributing to third-party researchers. Question 11: What is the size of your organization (number of members or number of attendees at recent meetings)? Question 12: What was the response rate (%) for your organization’s most recent demographic survey? *Organizations were also able to upload a copy of their demographics survey instead of responding to Questions 5-8. If so, the uploaded survey was used (by the study authors) to evaluate Questions 5-8.

Sexual, romantic, and related orientations across all institutions, based on the queered survey (n = 1932).

Queered gender across all institutions, based on the queered survey (n = 1932).

Survey type administered by institution and semester.

A comparison of population-level data on those with queer-spectrum identities in the 2017 Harris Poll (n = 2,037) and 2020 Gallup Poll (n>15,000 across all age groups) [33, 34].

This repository includes the questionnaire and dataset collected for the paper "DEI in Computing Higher Education: Survey and Analysis of Brazilian and Finnish University Practices," which was submitted to ESEM 2025.

Paper Abstract:

Background: Efforts have been made in STEM, for example, to encourage women to pursue careers in computing or promote the importance of team diversity in the field. However, implementing Diversity and Inclusion (DEI) in university-level computing education remains underexplored.
Aims: This study compares the current state of DEI in Brazilian and Finnish universities.
Method: We replicated in Brazil an online survey conducted in Finland.
Results: We received 68 responses from Brazilian teachers. We compared the Brazilian and Finnish scenarios for incorporating DEI aspects in the classes.
Conclusions: While the importance of DEI in education is recognized, the implementation of DEI practices varies significantly across institutions and countries. Several challenges hinder this implementation, including a lack of teaching materials, insufficient training, limited institutional support, and concerns about addressing these topics appropriately. Regarding countries' differences, Brazilian professors rate DEI more important but report lower satisfaction than Finns, highlighting cultural and demographic factors affecting DEI practices.

Files Description:

1. Responses.xlxs: This spreadsheet contains eight sheets. The "Original (Portuguese)" sheet includes responses to all questions in Brazilian Portuguese. The other sheets contain translated responses in English, organized by topics: approaches employed by teachers, additional approaches mentioned in open-ended questions, the importance of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), sample demographics, attitudes towards DEI, challenges in implementing DEI approaches, and other comments provided by the respondents.
2. Questionnaire.pdf: This file contains the questionnaire distributed to respondents, written in Brazilian Portuguese. By reviewing the PDF, you can see how we implemented the questionnaire using Google Forms. The English version of the questionnaire is available from the source from which we replicated it.

Replicated Study:

• Reference: Hyrynsalmi SM. Challenges and opportunities: Implementing diversity and inclusion in software engineering university level education in Finland. Journal of Systems and Software. 2024 Oct 16:112239.
• Zenodo package: zenodo.org/records/12791197

We anonymously surveyed members and non-members of the LGBTQIA+ community of conservation students and professionals in North America to explore participants’ lived experiences in conservation regarding safety, belonging, and inclusion. Our 737 responses included 10% that identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, questioning, nonspecific, genderfluid, transgender woman, agender, transgender man, two spirit Indigenous, or intersex (hereafter gender expansive), and 29% bisexual, queer, lesbian, gay, asexual, pansexual, omnisexual, questioning, or non-heterosexual (hereafter queer+). Data also include results of a non-response survey of 157 individuals who chose not to complete our the full survey, but answered basic demographic questions to determine non-response bias., Responses were solicited from an email list that included natural resource, conservation, ecology, wildlife, and fisheries departments from public and private universities; 4-year colleges; 2-year colleges; professional schools; technical, vocational, or trade schools; Hispanic-serving institutions; historically Black colleges and universities; tribal colleges, and women’s colleges. To include perspectives from non-academic settings and to target LGBTIQA+ individuals, we included listserv members of the “Out in the Field'' LGBTQIA+ and ally working group of the Wildlife Society as part of our survey population. We distributed a Qualtrics suvey and consent letter to ask respondents about their feelings and experiences of safety, belonging, and inclusion working in the field of conservation., Data were analyzed in R version 4.2.2. , # LGBTQIA+ experiences in conservation survey data

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.rfj6q57gr

Survey data from 737 conservation students and professionals describing their lived experience and feelings on inclusion, safety, and belonging while working in the field of conservation. Data were used to describe lessened feelings of inclusion, safety, and belonging among LGBTQIA+ conservation professionals compared to non-LGBTQIA+ professionals. We also include a file of 157 individuals who did not respond to the main survey, but responded to a short survey of demographic questions to quantify non-response bias. Location data and extended text response data have been removed to protect survey respondents' anonymity.

Description of the data and file structure

Data are an anonymous output from a Qualtrics survey. Location information has been removed for further anonymity. Includes basic demographic information and quantitative ratings of feelings...

Developing robust professional networks can help shape the trajectories of early career scientists. Yet, historical inequities in STEM fields make access to these networks highly variable across academic programs, and senior academics often have little time for mentoring. Here, we illustrate the success of a Virtual Lab Meeting Program (LaMP). In this program, we matched students (“Mentees”) with a more experienced researcher (“Mentors”) from a research group. The Mentees then attended the Mentors’ lab meetings during the academic year with two lab meetings specifically dedicated to the Mentee’s professional development. Survey results indicate that Mentees expanded their knowledge of the hidden curriculum as well as their professional network, while only requiring a few extra hours of their Mentor’s time over eight months. In addition, host labs benefitted from Mentees sharing new perspectives and knowledge in lab meetings. The diversity of the Mentees was significantly higher than the Mentors, suggesting that the program increased the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups. Finally, we found that providing a stipend was very important to many mentees. We conclude that Virtual Lab Meeting Programs can be an inclusive and cost-effective way to foster trainee development and increase diversity within STEM fields with little additional time commitment. Methods Running the Virtual Lab Meeting Training Program The first three months of the program require dedicated time for recruiting and matching Mentees and Mentors (for a summary of program timelines, see Figure 2). One month prior to the start of the academic year, we began to advertise the program by sharing a link to our webpage with potential mentors and mentees (https://rcn-ecs.github.io/VLMTP/; Figure 2). Then, we recruited mentors through a list of personal invitations, listservs, and members of the Evolution in Changing Seas RCN. We completed the process of recruiting 30-40 mentors approximately two weeks after the academic year started (Figure 2). Mentors were required to agree with a document that outlined expectations and best practices for including their Mentee in lab meetings (see Supplemental Materials). After mentors were recruited, we began the process of recruiting student Mentees. We generated an email contact list to contact as many participants as possible across a diverse group of scientific societies and institutions. The contact list consisted of scientific societies or diversity lists (e.g. Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics & Native Americans in Science, Diversify Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Black Women in Ecology Evolution and Marine Science, American Geophysical Union BRIDGE, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Multicultural program, Ecology Society of America SEEDs program, Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders in Geosciences), and a list of 608 professors teaching courses in biology, ecology, or evolution at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. In addition, we advertised to the RCN-ECS listserv and asked colleagues to distribute the information among peers. To apply, Mentees submitted a 300-word statement that described their current research interests and/or experiences related to the themes under the Evolution in Changing Seas RCN, future career interests, how interactions with a host lab would help to advance their careers and/or support their professional development, and a description of how their participation in this program would help to increase diversity (broadly defined) within the network. They also (i) answered questions about their time zone, (ii) listed their top three choices for mentors, (iii) selected two keywords that described their research interests from a list, (iv) submitted a CV or resume, and (v) optionally answered demographic questions. Approximately six weeks into the academic year, we closed applications for mentees and started pairing them with mentors. Matching was made by two members of the RCN diversity committee based on the Mentee’s academic interests, who they listed as their top three choices for a Mentor, and time zone alignment, taking into account how many Mentees could be assigned to a single Mentor (i.e. usually 1-2 Mentees per lab group). Due to high request rates for well-known Mentors, sometimes we were unable to match a Mentee with one of their top three choices. In the few cases where Mentees did not get their top choices, pairings were made based on affinity between Mentors’ and Mentees’ research interests. By the second month of the academic year, we had completed the process of pairing mentees with Mentors. Pairs were introduced to each other by email and reminded of the program guidelines and expectations (Supp Doc: Example Email). Over the course of the academic year, Mentees attended lab meetings on an independent basis. At the end of the academic year, we distributed stipends to students for their participation in the program. To obtain a stipend, students had to provide a letter from their Mentor that stated the student had completed the program requirements. Mentee and Mentor Surveys At the end of the academic year in 2022, we distributed surveys to Mentees and another survey to Mentors who had participated in the program (for complete surveys, see Supplemental Documents). Both surveys included optional questions on demographic information, year(s) of participation, activities that were part of lab meetings, potential for future collaborations, a Likert scale on how they ranked the program from 1 to 10, and open-ended feedback (Table 1, left column). We also had an open-ended question where participants were encouraged to leave constructive feedback. The Mentee survey included unique Likert scale questions on whether the program helped them extend their professional network, advance their expertise in subject matter, and how important the stipend was to completing the program. We also asked Mentees what kind of interactions most helped to advance their professional development, what knowledge they gained during the program, and whether they planned to continue interactions with the host lab (Table 1, middle column). The Mentor survey included questions on the number of Mentees hosted, professional development activities discussed in lab meetings, Mentee contributions to lab meetings, how much time mentors invested in the program, whether Mentees attended lab meetings beyond the program requirements, how many people attended their lab meetings, whether Mentees had 1:1 interactions with other lab members, and Likert questions on whether they agreed with statements regarding continued interactions and benefits of having the Mentee join lab meetings (Table 1, right column). IRB Review Our surveys were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University (IRB #: 22-03-33) and were considered exempt (DHHS Review Category: EXEMPT, CATEGORY #2 Revised Common Rule 45CFR46.104(d)(2)(iii)).

The project develops a concept for the qualification of pedagogical staff for inclusive education in the context of general public further education with a focus on the target group of blind and visually impaired people. The project uses a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, i.e. surveys and document analyses. The evaluations refer on the one hand to the needs of the adult education centers of a region, as well as to the requirements on the staff and the special features in the different program areas, on the other hand to the needs of blind and visually impaired addressees as well as to the knowledge of experts of self-help and relevant professional societies. On the basis of these analyses, two further training series for the staff of adult education centers with macrodidactic tasks of planning and microdidactic tasks of teaching will be developed. The aim is to qualify pedagogical staff (directors, program planners and course directors) in general continuing education with regard to a specific target group.

The quantitative survey of the addressees comprised 34 questions, which were checked in advance for accessibility. Target persons were all adults with blindness and/or visual impairment. Topics of the survey are further education experiences, information and decision behavior, further education needs, media use, perceived barriers in further education, experiences with offers of the adult education center and socio-demographic data. The average completion time was 26 minutes, ranging from about 10 minutes to more than an hour. In the context of four case studies at adult education centers in Hesse, additional cross-sectional online surveys were conducted for all four cases. The intended and addressed target group of the quantitative survey were course instructors at the adult education centers. The respondents were approached via the management and/or program area managers of the four Volkshochschulen researched, with the request that they be forwarded to the course managers assigned to them. The survey consisted of 28 questions about course management activities, inclusion experiences, qualification needs of course managers, and sociodemographic information.

The qualitative interviews conducted as part of the project using guided interviews are provided by the network partner DIPF under regulated access conditions. Link under ´notes´ and ´external links´.

Consolidated responses from open-ended question at Mid-Atlantic Public university (n = 1633).

This dataset contains three sections of data. All data files have been anonymised.

The first section contains quantitative and qualitative survey online results from 1485 participants across Australia. The survey recruited people aged 18 and over, who had previously used or currently used hormonal and/or non-hormonal contraception (including withdrawal and fertility awareness-based methods). A conversational level of English was required, and participants had (currently or in the past) a cervix. This criterion allowed for gender-diverse people to participate, and those who may have had a hysterectomy, if they wished to reflect back on past experiences. Only 16.7% of survey participants were over 45 years; most data came from participants 18-44 years. Survey participants reported a broad range of gender identities, sexual preferences, cultural backgrounds, child-bearing desires, and other demographics. For example, most survey participants identified as cis women, with 15% identifying as a gender other than cis woman. Survey data is stored as a single Excel file (.xlsx) and as a CSV file (.csv).

The survey was titled “Voice Your Contraception Experiences” and contained five sections: demographics and contraception use; satisfaction with current or most recent contraception method (including use of an adapted quantitative survey instrument); contraception healthcare experiences (including use of a quantitative survey instrument); reproductive autonomy (including use of an adapted quantitative survey instrument); and free text open-ended questions about the three preceding instruments, and about contraception influences and side effects. Demographic data collected included age, gender, sexual preferences, cultural background, education level, childbearing desires, existing chronic health conditions, and whether these influenced contraception use. Open-ended questions were used to explore in greater depth satisfaction, healthcare, autonomy, and experiences of contraception method/s including side effects experienced, as well as any consequences of these experiences. Aspects of a trans survey developed by Moseson et al (2020) such as more gender inclusive questions and overall language, as well as participant suggestions from trans communities in Australian Facebook groups were included in a separately distributed trans version of the survey.

The second and third sections of data are from 20 participants who elected to complete a body mapping session, and in-depth interview, respectively. The body mapping comprised a participant written timeline of contraception use so far, thinking about first use, switching and discontinuations, and significant events of physical/emotional/psychological importance connected to contraception use (saved as a text file, .txt). The body mapping session also included a verbal description and recap of this by the participant (transcribed and saved as a Word doc file, .docx), a body map (digital image, .tiff), and a body map summary by the participant (transcribed and saved as a Word doc file, .docx). The in-depth interviews are transcribed and stored as Word doc files (.docx). The second section also contains some comments made by participants during the body mapping sessions (transcribed and saved as Word doc files, .docx). 20 participants completed the timeline of contraception use, 18 completed the body mapping session, and 17 completed the in-depth interview. Data from partial completion of stage two was included in the analysis. Stage two participants were aged 18-39, with a median age of 28, corresponding with the age range of the majority of survey participants. Of total stage two participants, 20% had a gender identity other than woman, and 60% had sexual preference as non-heterosexual. Regarding cultural diversity and childbearing desires, 25% of stage two participants were of a cultural background not solely White, with 45% not wanting any, or any more children, respectively.

This dataset cannot be published openly due to ethics conditions. To discuss the research, please contact Susan Manners S.Manners@westernsydney.edu.au ORCID 0000-0002-9281-257X

Queer-spectrum and cisgender/heterosexual student identities.

The purpose of this research project is to explore children's social workers' awareness and implementation of the NICE guidelines on self-harm with children in care.Children in care are at an increased risk of self-harm with risk rates between two and four-fold higher than children without care experience. However, very little is known about the assessment and management of self-harm in this group. This study explores children’s social workers’ knowledge of the NICE guidelines on self-harm and their opportunities, capabilities and motivations to implement them with children in care, using a large-scale online survey. The survey consists of 19 questions (three screening questions (1-3), two assessing awareness and implementation levels (4-5), and six assessing opportunity, motivation and capability to implement the NICE guidelines on self-harm, adapted from Keyworth et al., 2020 (items 6-11) based on the COM-B model (Michie et al., 2011); a free response question asking participants if anything has helped or hindered NICE guideline implementation with children in care who self-harm (12); seven questions addressing demographic information (13-19): area of social work specialism, number of years of experience, regional area of work, age, ethnicity, gender and disability status). Items 16-19 ask about personal information of protected characteristics, constructed using Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY) guidance (EDIS & Wellcome, 2022) and Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines (Heidari et al., 2016). These questions contain an optional response of “prefer not to respond.” 18 of 19 items are forced-choice questions, requiring participants to insert a response, meaning items cannot be skipped. Item 12, the free response text item, is the exception. The forced response pattern is to minimise the risk of missing data. All survey items were reviewed by a trauma-informed expert and public contributors with lived experience of self-harm to ensure language sensitivity and acceptability.References:EDIS & Wellcome (2022). ‘The DAISY Guidance Version 2’. Available at: https://edisgroup.org/resources/practical-tools-and-guidance/diversity-and-inclusion-survey-daisy-question-guidance-v2/. Heidari, S., Babor, T.F., De Castro, P., Tort S., Curno, M. (2016). Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev, 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6Keyworth, C., Epton, T., Goldthorpe, J., Calam, R., Armitage, C.J. (2020) Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (“COM-B”). British Journal of Health Psychology, 25 (3), 474-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12417Michie, S., Van Stralen, M.M., & West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions. Imp Sci. 6, 42.

The individual-medical concept of disability, whereby disability is believed to be caused by some intractable impairment, is perhaps the most widely held view in society. However, other concepts exist with which teachers in inclusive schools should be familiar (e.g., social, systemic), to better inform teacher behavior, attitudes and understanding. We therefore developed an instrument to capture education students’ concepts of disability. We constructed the questionnaire according to four theoretical models of disability (individual-medical, social, systemic, and cultural concepts), which are commonly used in inclusive teacher education, and validated this on a sample of 775 education students. Additionally, we administered the Attitudes towards Inclusion Scale (AIS) and measured key demographic variables. The instruments, data and analysis code used are available online at https://osf.io/dm4cs/. After dropping redundant items, a shortened form of the questionnaire contained 16 items, with satisfactory psychometric values for scales pertaining to four concepts of disability (CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.037, SRMR = 0.039). These four concepts of disability showed small correlations with the AIS, indicating that our questionnaire measured an independent construct. The more experience education students had with disability and the more courses they had attended on inclusive education, the more likely they were to agree with the social concept of disability. The questionnaire shows promise in measuring concepts of disability and might be used to stimulate students’ critical reflection during teacher education.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in both developed and developing nations. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for coronary artery disease through machine-learning and assess this methodology. A retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study using the publicly available National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was conducted in patients who completed the demographic, dietary, exercise, and mental health questionnaire and had laboratory and physical exam data. Univariate logistic models, with CAD as the outcome, were used to identify covariates that were associated with CAD. Covariates that had a p

BackgroundDuring the Omicron pandemic, clinical first-line nurses played a crucial role in healthcare. Their innovative behavior enhanced the quality of nursing and served as a vital factor in driving the sustainable development of the nursing discipline and healthcare industry. Many previous studies have confirmed the significance of nurses’ innovative behavior worldwide. However, the correlations among innovative behaviors, organizational innovation climate, self-transcendence, and their mediating roles in Chinese clinical first-line nurses need further research.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted, and the quality reporting conformed to the STROBE Checklist. From March 2022 to February 2023, a convenience sample of 1,058 Chinese clinical first-line nurses was recruited from seven tertiary grade-A hospitals of Tianjin city in Northern China. The Demographic Characteristics Questionnaire, Nurse Innovative Behavior Scale (NIBS), Nurse Organizational Innovation Climate Scale, and the Self-Transcendence Scale were used. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation, and process plug-in mediation effect analyses.ResultsThe total scores of innovative behavior, organizational innovation climate, and self-transcendence were 33.19 ± 6.71, 68.88 ± 12.76, and 41.25 ± 7.83, respectively. Innovative behavior was positively correlated with the organizational innovation climate (r = 0.583, p < 0.01) and self-transcendence (r = 0.635, p < 0.01). Self-transcendence partially mediated mediating role between innovative behavior and organizational innovation climate, accounting for 41.7%.ConclusionThe innovative behavior, organizational innovation climate, and self-transcendence among the first-line nurses during the Omicron pandemic were relatively moderate, which needs improving. Organizational innovation climate can directly affect the innovative behavior among Chinese clinical first-line nurses and indirectly through the mediating role of self-transcendence. It is recommended that nursing managers adjust their management strategies and techniques based on the unique characteristics of nurses during the pandemic. This includes fostering a positive and inclusive environment for organizational innovation, nurturing nurses’ motivation and awareness for innovation, enhancing their ability to gather information effectively, overcoming negative emotions resulting from the pandemic, and promoting personal growth. These efforts will ultimately enhance nursing quality and satisfaction during the Omicron pandemic.

The correlations among innovative behavior, organizational innovation climate, and self-transcendence of the Chinese clinical first-line nurses (n = 1,058, r).

Demographic characteristics of participants in PKCS.