Assessing Authentic Diversity in the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Part 2

Abstract

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series reflecting on diversity within the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). Part 1 discussed what it means to pursue authentic diversity and reported recent demographic characteristics of HFES. Part 2 discusses a brief history of relevant efforts in HFES and recent scholarship that suggests sustained interest in diversity issues within human factors and ergonomics. Part 2 concludes with a discussion about how human factors and ergonomics professionals can continue to lead the design and implementation of systemic change that benefits all by embracing human complexity.

Keywords

inclusion social justice organization measurement metrics race systems gender

Purpose and Potential

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series that addresses the pursuit of authentic diversity within the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), and how this work is essential to realizing its overarching goals (HFES, n.d.-c). Part 1 began by articulating an informal framework for authentic diversity that defined the overall concept, different types of diversity, discussed benefits of authentic diversity, and considered factors that may support, threaten, or influence authentic diversity.

In brief, authentic diversity refers to representation of different people and ideas that is accompanied by legitimate feelings and experiences of belonging, worth, and participation. The people who are present must also have power, value, and agency within the organization. Collectively, this authentic experience of being a valued part of the organization is referred to as inclusion (Puritty et al., 2017; Roberson, 2006; Sherbin & Rashid, 2017; Shore et al., 2011; Tienda, 2013). Moreover, authentic diversity further requires attention to equity, or working to ensure that peoples’ different needs and resources are not barriers to inclusion.

Part 1 also addressed HFES demographics – as a relatively simple metric of authentic diversity – and reported disparities with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity. Beyond this simple metric, HFES has also demonstrated its commitment to authentic diversity through a variety of activities in recent years. Part 2 now addresses a brief history of relevant efforts in the HFES community, alongside recent scholarship in human factors and ergonomics (HF/E), suggesting sustained interest in diversity issues. Following these assessments of authentic diversity, the article reflects on how HFES might continue to pursue authentic diversity.

Efforts Supporting Authentic Diversity in HFES

HFES has documented its progress in gender parity via a series of profiles on its first woman member (Ruth Hoyt in 1958), Fellow (Dora Dougherty McKeown in 1968), President (Gloria L. Grace in 1978), and Editor-in-Chief (Nancy J. Cooke in 2005; see Durso, 2014). Other efforts to address diversity within HFES include the establishment of the first HFES Diversity Task Force in 1994. The Diversity Task Force was renewed yearly until 2015–2016, when diversity and inclusion were officially added to the HFES Strategic Plan and the Diversity Task Force transitioned to a more permanent standing committee by then HFES President William S. Marras. The inaugural Diversity Committee, led by Pascale Carayon, formed a charter

to support diversity and inclusion efforts within the society . . . by continuing and initiating programming or policies . . . [that] foster a culture and atmosphere of mutual respect, to retain, attract, and promote outstanding, diverse human factors professionals. (Chiou et al., 2017, p. 498)

The Diversity Committee was recognized as a Council Committee in 2019, the highest level in the committee hierarchy (Chiou et al., 2017; HFES, n.d.-b).

In recent years, HFES annual meeting programming has consistently included topics on diversity and inclusion within HFES and the fields of HF/E. A search conducted on the HFES annual meeting programs from 2016 to 2019 identified items summarized in Table 1. This list represents an incomplete selection of activities because it only considers what was documented through print (HFES, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). However, these activities suggest an increasing awareness of, or sustained interest in, diversity and inclusion as part of HFES and HF/E culture and practice.

Table 1.

Diversity and Inclusion Programming Related to Community Building or Professional Development at the HFES Annual Meetings From 2016 to 2019.

Year	Program Item
2016	1. Panel session, “The HFES Diversity Task Force: Advancing the HFES Vision of Inclusion,” chaired by Smith-Jackson and Pak
2017	1. Panel session, “The HFES Diversity Committee: Challenges and Opportunities for Involvement,” chaired by Chiou and Wooldridge 2. Women’s Group networking lunch is printed in the program 3. Policies section includes a description of “appropriate conduct” for attendees addressing discrimination and harassment
2018	1. Workshop, “Mental Models and Their Impact on Scholarship and Practice: Improving Diversity and Inclusion in HF/E,” by Kaunas 2. Plenary session, “Diversity and Inclusion in HFES and Beyond: Striving to Be Better,” chaired by Davis 3. Professional development panel session, “Women’s Leadership in HF/E: Past, Present, & Future,” chaired by Hancock 4. Professional development panel session, “Women and Power: Claim It and Aim It (A Talk for All Humans),” chaired by Blickensderfer 5. “Pink Socks” campaign organized by HFES President Kermit Davis in which bright pink socks were distributed by members of the Executive Council to various attendees. Recipients then gave a pair to someone else. As described by Nick Adkins, the founder of Pink Socks, such sharing purportedly generates new connections among members and fosters inclusion at the annual meeting (Pink Socks, n.d.).
2019	1. Panel session, “HeForShe in HFE: Strategies for Enhancing Equality in Leadership for All Allies,” chaired by Stowers 2. Notification of a gender neutral restroom was included in the program

Note. This table likely excludes items that did not use specific terms in their titles, ad hoc events that were organized on-site through “Birds of a Feather,” or the “Student Career & Professional Development” items that were not published in the original program. HFES = Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; HF/E = human factors and ergonomics; HFE = human factors and ergonomics.

Interest in diversity and inclusion is also demonstrated in the emergence of several “affinity groups,” including the HFES Women’s Group, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning) Affinity Group, and People of Color Affinity Group (HFES, n.d.-b). These affinity groups were either formed “bottom up” by members (e.g., Women’s Group activities go back to 2013; E. Blickensderfer, personal communication, August 24, 2020), or formed “top down” by HFES leadership. In all cases, these groups were formed to support and represent the needs of those who identify as members of those groups or as active allies of those groups. A Leadership Development Committee was also established in 2018 by HFES President Kermit Davis to work toward making leadership roles in HFES more accessible to a diverse set of future leaders.

This list of activities is not exhaustive, but collectively these contribute toward HFES’s authentic diversity in several ways. First, the proliferation of annual meeting panels and affinity groups provides a means of expressing observations, concerns, needs, and goals to be heard by HFES colleagues and leaders. Second, these activities provide a way for people – especially those from underrepresented groups – to gather, socialize, and be recognized. These activities increase the visibility of shared concerns and interests for current and prospective members. This visibility also helps form a foothold for representational diversity (e.g., the presence of diverse role models), as well as feelings of value, belonging, and power.

Third, these activities communicate that HFES values diverse people and concerns. HFES already comprises numerous Technical Groups (TGs) that represent a wealth of expertise (i.e., functional and cognitive diversity). However, affinity groups and annual meeting events demonstrate growing attention to demographic or cultural diversity as well. Importantly, both annual meeting events and affinity groups can only occur after review (e.g., peer review of panel submissions or Executive Council review of proposed affinity groups). That these activities occur with official sanction and approval by the HFES further demonstrates interest and commitment.

Recent Scholarship Relevant to Authentic Diversity

As suggested by several aforementioned activities (e.g., Wooldridge et al., 2018), efforts to be a more inclusive community have paralleled attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion in research and practice. Table 2 notes recent annual meeting papers focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion themes from various TGs. These publications represent a small selection from the past several decades of proceedings papers (e.g., Carayon et al., 2002; Newman, 2002; Perchonok & Montague, 2012; Sanders et al., 2006; Smith et al., 1994).

Table 2.

Technical Program Items Related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Scholarship From 2016 to 2019 Annual Meeting Program Brochures.

Year	Program Item
2016	1. Education–TG session presentation, “Development of Game-Based Learning Requirements to Increase Female Middle-School Students’ Interest in Computer Science,” by Bonner and Dorneich 2. Computer Systems–TG session presentation, “Touchscreen Voting Interface Design for Persons With Disabilities: Insights From Usability Evaluation of Mobile Voting Prototype” by Ismirle, O’Bara, Swierenga, and Jackson
2017	1. Opening plenary keynote “Policing Reform Versus Police Reform” by Davis 2. Poster presentation, “Human Capability-Sensitive Design Rules for Products Using Inclusive Design Principles,” by Carey and McAdams 3. Education–TG session presentation, “Topics in Inclusive Design for the Graduate Human Factors Engineering Curriculum,” by D’Souza 4. Product Design–TG session presentation, “Disability Distribution Modeling for Universal Product Design” by Conrad and Pandey 5. Internet–TG and Computer Systems–TG session presentation “A Desktop Usability Evaluation of the Facebook Mobile Interface Using the JAWS Screen Reader With Blind Users,” by Brinkley and Tabrizi 6. Product Design–TG session presentation “A Focus Group Study of Blind Voters in Alachua County,” by Posadas, Sherman, Mahendran, Burgalia, and Gilbert
2018	1. Panel session, “Human Factors and Ergonomics in Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice Research,” chaired by Wooldridge
2019	1. Panel session, “HFE in Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice: A Practical Primer,” chaired by Wooldridge 2. Panel session, “An Exploration of Patient Ergonomics in Historically Marginalized Communities,” chaired by Valdez and Holden 3. Panel session, “Human Factors Considerations for Persons Aging-in-Place with Disability,” chaired by Beer and Mois 4. Occupational Ergonomics–TG session presentation, “Gender and Parity in Statistical Prediction of Anterior Carry Hand-Loads from Inertial Sensor Data,” by Lim and D’Souza 5. Poster presentation, “Using Universal Design to Improve the Visitor Experience at the Georgia Aquarium,” by Yoo, Li, Khote, Mandula, San Molu, and Lu

Note. An iterative process was used to determine search terms and variations – women, female, girl, diversity, disab(-led, -ility, -ilities), rac(-ial, -e), inclus(-ion, -ive), blind, deaf, black, african, latin(-o, -a, -x), ethnic, marginalized, historic, universal, gender, and (dis-)parity. Session titles, descriptions, and abstracts were manually inspected. Items were excluded if presentations focused on individual differences but not specifically on diversity, equity, or inclusion. TG = Technical Group.

Across this body of work, there are generally three approaches to addressing diversity issues: addressing or discovering group disparities, demonstrating inclusive design or research practices, or demonstrating an intervention with societal impact. Notably, the selection from 2016 to 2019 covers diverse domains spanning product design, urban development, workforce development, education, and health care.

This ongoing scholarly interest in diversity, equity, and inclusion reflects shifts in the HF/E profession since its World War II origins. The earliest HF/E work was much more isolated from studying or designing for intergroup differences (Kuorinka, 2000; Lillie, 1950; Stuster, 2006; Taylor, 1993). This may be why a selection of annual meeting papers from 2016 to 2019 still represent a small minority compared with other technical topics, and why related work published outside of HFES can be found (e.g., Gatehouse et al., 2018; Hardy & Vargas, 2019; Harrington et al., 2019; O’Leary et al., 2019; Spiel et al., 2018). Given that published papers tend to represent a fraction of total submissions, it is reasonable to infer that others have tried to submit work related to diversity, equity, and inclusion but were not successful due to biases about what issues or populations HF/E addresses.

However, published work ultimately shows that addressing these issues is an active area of interest for HFES. In comparison with early years, the field of HF/E seems to have evolved to include broader representation and advocacy for vulnerable groups working or living within oppressive systems. Recognizing that diversity, equity, and inclusion are areas that HF/E can help address through publications and presentations contributes to authentic diversity. This recognition may demonstrate to students and to prospective HFES members how to productively engage as scholar-activists – that career success and community impact can go hand-in-hand.

Much more could be written about how HF/E tools and methods could contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion related efforts. Indeed, there is a longer history of related work that is not reviewed here (e.g., Moray, 1993; Roscoe et al., 2020; Smith-Jackson et al., 2013; Stephanidis, 1995; Ward, 1989). However, the primary focus of this paper series is intentionally self-reflective. This self-reflection addresses whether the public, outward scholarship and advocacy of HF/E matches the internal stewardship and practices of HFES as assessed through its demographics in Part 1, and through its networking activities and scholarship in this article, Part 2. Indeed, assessing whether internal values match external functions is another hallmark of an organization’s authentic diversity.

Overall, HFES appears to be on a positive trajectory regarding authentic diversity. This progress is suggested by recent organizational efforts to promote and to establish support for minority groups, and by recent annual meeting programming by individual members. Efforts that embrace authentic diversity – if they are sustained, well-supported, and mindfully implemented – should spur further growth of the society, as well as diversity of its growth in the long run (Bourke & Dillon, 2018; Cedric, 2009; Nemeth, 1986; Sherbin & Rashid, 2017; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

Discussion

The framework for authentic diversity described in Part 1 provides structure for assessing HFES’s diversity health. Demographics, notable milestones (e.g., the “first women”), and activities (e.g., panels) can be interpreted within this framework. The formation of the Diversity Committee and affinity groups are examples of organizational support that serve as both antecedents and indicators of authentic diversity. However, on their own, they may be insufficient. Furthermore, publishing on topics that relate to diversity, inclusion, and equity shows intellectual interest and professional commitment to these topics, but does not necessarily mean that HFES is a diverse or inclusive group, as shown in Part 1.

HFES must recognize and internalize diversity, equity, and inclusion as fundamental values that guide the organization (e.g., operations, policies, recruitment, events, and outreach) and the work of its members (e.g., research, practice, and service). Systemic change will require committed work at multiple levels and by multiple stakeholders – not just among special interest groups. This work includes understanding the following:

To what extent HFES is an inclusive environment

What HFES can do to be more inclusive as an organization

How to do work on inclusion, or studying inclusion and equity as HF/E topics

How to be inclusive as we work, in our work groups and in our methods

Part 2 documented steps taken by individual leaders and members in each of these areas over the past several decades – but has this progress been enough? An essential question that extends from this self-reflection is whether and how the HF/E profession defines and accepts societal problems – inequities and injustice – as problems it can help address. Where does HF/E have the responsibility and capacity for problem-solving? What motivates these questions is for HFES to have greater and more lasting impact on issues that some may describe as beyond its traditional focus.

Self-assessments of HFES diversity to-date have focused primarily on demographic diversity. As an example of this, a revised set of demographics questions developed by the Diversity Committee was implemented on the new HFES website in the fall of 2020. However, HFES’s instruments for assessing authentic diversity – including this paper series – are still very new, optional, and possibly lacking in some categories. More important, these tools lack a standardized reporting process, and lack integration with day-to-day operations. HFES has implemented diversity as a strategic goal, but HFES is not currently systematically measuring progress toward this goal.

Regarding recent activities and efforts (e.g., new Affinity Groups), HFES does not have any formal procedures for archiving, knowledge sharing, or transitioning efforts between task forces or committees. This means that successful transitions between parts of the organization currently rely on the goodwill or organizational skillset of individual volunteers. Although committees and task forces are expected to provide annual or semiannual updates to the Executive Council, it is unclear if and how these reports are stored, shared, or accessed. Except for a published proceedings paper (Smith-Jackson et al., 2016), the 2014 Task Force survey results, and 2016 Diversity Committee Report (Carayon, 2016), only two additional Diversity Task Force reports from 1999 to 2000 were tracked down by the first author after searching for contact information and reaching out to all former Diversity Task Force Chairs (HFES, n.d.-a).

Without formalized tracking, archiving, and sharing of data and organizational knowledge, such metrics of HFES’s progress on diversity will be inaccessible to future generations. If future members do not have access to previous ideas, efforts, failures, and achievements, this severely limits the organization’s ability to learn, to celebrate milestones, and to progress. Just as this paper series – and its incomplete reporting – relied on historical documents compiled by individual members or leaders who served the Society (Carayon, 2016; Durso, 2014; Smith-Jackson et al., 2016; Stuster, 2006), future members and leaders would benefit from having more systematic organizational knowledge transfer. This would allow for the tracking of efforts between cycles or generations of leadership, so that important lessons and achievements are not overlooked.

Future Direction

The potential for HFES to grow as a professional home for others, and the potential for HF/E to grow as a profession with societal impact, motivates this paper series. Research on innovation and economic productivity shows that social inequities involving groups that were historically targets of discrimination and violence, hurts not only the members of those groups but also the broader population’s productivity and progress for generations (Cook, 2014, 2020). Research also shows that defaults are powerful in guiding personal decisions, defaults like working within one’s own existing networks rather than reaching out to someone different or new, and such decisions can have consequential, population-level effects (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003; Schelling, 1973).

HF/E as a field recognizes that systemic change requires a sociotechnical systems perspective and working across multiple levels of a system. Within HFES, these levels may look like its members, chapters, leadership, and global network. Importantly, HFES leaders, administrators, and members must internalize authentic diversity as a fundamental value of their work (including in research, education, practice, and service). However, systemic change ultimately requires better measurement, tracking, and understanding of the extent that HFES is an authentically diverse organization.

Some questions remain about HFES’s future that requires additional dialogue and actions within the HFES. For example, should a goal for diversity in HFES be to mirror the demographic composition of society? Whatever the case, adopting a more inclusive approach allows HF/E professionals to leverage their substantial expertise, often involving an appreciation for human complexity, to develop better understanding and more effective interventions that benefit the people within a system. Embracing this complexity, rather than rejecting it, may benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged groups the most – but in fact it benefits everyone.

Conclusion

In HFES’s “first 50 years” in review, an early contributor fondly recalled the days in which the membership of about 15 people “enjoyed monthly dinner sessions and were happy to not have bylaws, officers, or dues” (Van Cott, 2006). Creating such intimate and inclusive environments is undoubtedly critical for early career development and can result in the type of meaningful connections that propel a society forward for 63 years and counting, with 3,500 or more members. Indeed, HFES was known for its inclusivity early on in its history. As the American Psychological Association Division 21, founded in 1956, wrote,

The Human Factors Society was from the very beginning a multidisciplinary organization that accepted as members anyone who worked or even expressed interest in any of the multiple areas of human factors-area. . . . Although at its beginning between a third and a half of its members were psychologists, the Human Factors Society has never been viewed as a “psychological society,” nor has it indicated any desire to be so perceived. (Alluisi, 1993, p. 17)

Yet creating inclusive environments for all can be challenging to manage as organizations grow, especially without mindful and shared responsibility. The question for such organizations is whether or not this continued growth of the membership, and of the profession, is a goal.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers, Richard Holden, Beth Blickensderfer, Ashley Hughes, Richard Pak, Samantha Wright, Pascale Carayon, John D. Lee, and the 2021 HFES Executive Council members whose comments or previous communication improved parts of this white paper. Any errors are the authors’ own. Ameera Patel assisted in the earlier versions of the figures.

Erin K. Chiou is an assistant professor of human systems engineering at Arizona State University. She studies human–automation interaction in complex work environments, with a focus on trust and teaming with autonomous systems. She received her PhD in industrial and systems engineering from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2016. She can be reached at erin.chiou@asu.edu. ORCID iD: .

Rod D. Roscoe is an associate professor of human systems engineering at Arizona State University. His research investigates how the intersection of learning science, computer science, and user science can inform effective and innovative uses of educational technologies. He received his PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Pittsburgh in 2007. He can be reached at rod.roscoe@asu.edu.

References

Alluisi

E. A.

(1993). APA Division 21: Roots and rooters. In Taylor

H. L.

(Ed.), Who made distinguished contributions to engineering psychology (pp. 4–22). American Psychological Association.

Bourke

Dillon

(2018, January 22). The diversity and inclusion revolution: Eight powerful truths. Deloitte Review. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/deloitte-review/issue-22/diversity-and-inclusion-at-work-eight-powerful-truths.html

Carayon

(2016). HFES Diversity Task Force Report. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Carayon

Haims

M. C.

Brunette

M. J.

Hoonakker

(2002). Quality of working life among women and minorities in the information technology workforce: A pilot study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(15), 1379–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204601514

Cedric

(2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203

Chiou

E. K.

Wooldridge

A. R.

Price

Mosqueda

Roscoe

R. D.

(2017). The HFES Diversity Committee: Challenges and opportunities for involvement. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 498–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601608

Cook

L. D.

(2014). Violence and economic activity: Evidence from African American patents, 1870-1940. Journal of Economic Growth, 19(2), 221–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-014-9102-z

Cook

L. D.

(2020, November 18). Racism impoverishes the whole economy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/business/racism-impoverishes-the-whole-economy.html?smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur

Durso

F. T.

(2014). First Ladies of HFES. https://www.hfes.org/about-hfes/hfes-history/first-ladies-of-hfes

10.

Gatehouse

Wood

Briggs

Pickles

Lawson

(2018). Troubling vulnerability: Designing with LGBT young people’s ambivalence towards hate crime reporting. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Asscoiation for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173683

11.

Hardy

Vargas

(2019). Participatory design and the future of rural LGBTQ communities. In Companion Publication of the 2019 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 195–199). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301019.3323894

12.

Harrington

Erete

Piper

A. M.

(2019). Deconstructing community-based collaborative design. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 3, Issue CSCW, pp. 1–25). Asscoiation for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318

13.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (n.d.-a). HFES officers, editors, and committee chairs. https://www.hfes.org/About-HFES/Leadership-and-Staff

14.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (n.d.-b). HFES organizational chart. https://www.hfes.org/About-HFES/Organizational-Chart

15.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (n.d.-c). Strategic plan. https://www.hfes.org/about-hfes/strategic-plan

16.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (2016). HFES International Annual Meeting Program. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/HFES/42fffbb4-31e1-4e52-bda6-1393762cbfcd/UploadedImages/2016HFESAnnualMeetingProgram.pdf

17.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (2017). HFES International Annual Meeting Program. http://cms.hfes.org/Cms/media/CmsImages/HFES-2017-Annual-Meeting-Program.pdf

18.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (2018). HFES International Annual Meeting Program. http://cms.hfes.org/Cms/media/CmsImages/HFES-2018-Annual-Meeting-Program.pdf

19.

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (2019). HFES 63rd International Annual Meeting. https://www.hfes2019.org/

20.

Johnson

E. J.

Goldstein

(2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721

21.

Kuorinka

(Ed.). (2000). History of the International Ergonomics Association – The first quarter of a century. The IEA Press: International Ergonomics Association. https://iea.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/History-of-the-International-Ergonomics-Association-The-First-Quarter-of-a-Century-1.pdf

22.

Lillie

H. R.

(1950). Ergonomics Research Society. British Medical Journal, 1(4660), 1009. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4660.1009-a

23.

Moray

(1993). Technosophy and humane factors. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 1(4), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/106480469300100409

24.

Nemeth

C. J.

(1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

25.

Newman

L. C.

(2002). Macroergonomics and diversity: Education, healthcare and the workforce. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(15), 1374–1374. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204601512

26.

O’Leary

J. T.

Zewde

Mankoff

Rosner

D. K.

(2019). Who gets to future? Race, representation, and design methods in Africatown. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300791

27.

Perchonok

Montague

(2012). The need to examine culture in health technology. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1847–1851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561372

28.

Pink Socks. (n.d.). About us. https://pinksocks.life/about-us/

29.

Puritty

Strickland

L. R.

Alia

Blonder

Klein

Kohl

M. T.

McGee

Quintana

Ridley

R. E.

Tellman

Gerber

L. R.

(2017). Without inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough. Science, 357(6356), 1101–1102. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9054

30.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064

31.

Roscoe

R. D.

Chiou

E. K.

Wooldridge

A. R.

(2020). Advancing diversity, inclusion, and social justice through human systems engineering. CRC Press.

32.

Sanders

Farrell

P. V.

Pfatteicher

S. K. A.

(2006). Curriculum innovation using job design theory. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(6), 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000604

33.

Schelling

T. C.

(1973). Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(3), 381–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277301700302

34.

Sherbin

Rashid

(2017, February 1). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt-stick-without-inclusion

35.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Ehrhart

K. H.

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943

36.

Smith

M. J.

Carayon

Smith

Cohen

Upton

(1994). Community ergonomics: A theoretical model for rebuilding the inner city. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 38(12), 724–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129403801202

37.

Smith-Jackson

Pak

Johnson

McLaughlin

Rovira

(2016). The HFES Diversity Task Force: Advancing the HFES vision of inclusion. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Erconomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 422–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601095

38.

Smith-Jackson

T. L.

Resnick

M. L.

Johnson

K. T.

(Eds.). (2013). Cultural Ergonomics: Theory, methods, and applications (1st ed.). CRC Press.

39.

Spiel

Brulé

Frauenberger

Bailly

Fitzpatrick

(2018). Micro-ethics for participatory design with marginalised children.Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference (pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210603

40.

Stephanidis

(1995). Towards user interfaces for all: Some critical issues. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics, 20, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-2647(06)80024-9

41.

Stuster

(Ed.). (2006). The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Stories from the first 50 years. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/HFES/42fffbb4-31e1-4e52-bda6-1393762cbfcd/UploadedImages/HFES_First_50_Years.pdf

42.

Taylor

H. L.

(Ed.). (1993). Who made distinguished contributions to engineering psychology. American Psychological Association. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-21/about/distinguished-contributions.pdf

43.

Tienda

(2013). Diversity ≠ inclusion: Promoting integration in higher education. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13516164

44.

Van Cott

. (2006). The early years. In Stuster

(Ed.), The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Stories from the first 50 years (p. 7). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

45.

van Knippenberg

Schippers

M. C

. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

46.

Ward

J. T.

(1989). Human factors design guidelines for the disabled. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 33(6), 490–492. https://doi.org/10.1518/107118189786759633

47.

Wooldridge

A. R.

Nguyen

Valdez

Montague

Milner

M. N.

Dorneich

M. C.

Roscoe

R. D.

(2018). Human factors and ergonomics in diversity, inclusion and social justice research. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 447–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621102