PANEL EVENT 23.09.2025

• Confidence and Imposter Syndrome  

Aneja described struggling with self-confidence and imposter syndrome, she didn’t initially feel entitled to challenge white academics when theories felt irrelevant in her Indian context, and often felt "slower" than peers. A lack of visible role models reinforced the belief that higher positions weren’t attainable. What helped: reframing her skills, finding a community, and reshaping internal narratives. 

• Identity and Belonging Across Contexts 

Sudo shared that she never fit neatly into categories—neither fully “insider” nor “outsider.” This gave her unique value as a communicator between cultural contexts, but also meant navigating multiple sets of unspoken rules. She learned to directly seek advice in spaces where norms differ. 

• Overburden and Confidence Gaps  

Loth reported a persistent sense of inadequacy despite having role models. She noted how women (particularly young women) are often asked to take on small “extra” administrative tasks, which can become resented as they eat into research time. 

EDI Beyond Box-Ticking 

Aneja critiqued current Equality, Diversity & Inclusion practices as performative, urging institutions to move beyond tokenism. She emphasized targeted mentorships, reflexivity in collaborations, and accountability in citation and collaboration choices. True allyship requires sacrifice, not just symbolic support. 

Embedding Inclusive Practices 

Sudo encouraged framing minority researchers as assets, not outliers. Inclusive scholarship should include questions like “does this apply to your cultural context?” as standard practice, supported through seminars and conferences that normalize diverse perspectives. 

Systemic Change  

Loth underscored that inclusivity requires institutional-level change rather than ad-hoc initiatives. EDI work must be fully integrated into university systems and resourced appropriately. 

Western-Centric Incentives 

Sudo pointed to the extra explanatory burden faced by minority researchers when justifying non-Western contexts. She argued that publishing in multiple languages and changing reviewer incentives are critical for producing knowledge that generalizes beyond WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) populations. 

Convenience Samples in Psychology  

Loth criticised the heavy reliance on psychology students as research participants, a sample unrepresentative of wider populations. She noted the challenge of gaining trust from underrepresented groups, which takes time but is necessary for more representative science. 

Theory Grounded in Western Common Sense 

Aneja highlighted the lack of diverse representation in foundational theories, which are predominantly based on white, Western assumptions. She advocated for questioning the idea of a “white control group,” giving students space to think about systemic barriers, and amplifying minority students’ voices in shaping solutions. 

Community Engagement  

Aneja emphasized building trust directly with communities: meeting families, being flexible with research timings, explaining research goals clearly, and providing detailed debriefs. These efforts help participants feel welcome in university spaces often perceived as inaccessible. 

Linguistic and Cultural Adaptation  

Sudo shared how, in a research project with Brazilian immigrant children in Japan, the research team ensured that materials were accurately translated and culturally relevant, and that testers could speak Portuguese. Such steps directly improved the validity of her findings and increased participant trust. 

Accessible Media and Shared Resources  

Loth recommended creating short videos and using platforms like Shades of Science to share resources. She suggested collective documents outlining best practices for inclusive research as a way to scale impact across labs. 

Choosing Mentors  

The panel stressed that when working with mentors who do not share your background, the burden of explanation may fall on you. However, cross-cultural mentorship can still work if institutions provide structures (time, funding) for meaningful relationship-building. 

Building Networks 

Aneja suggested networks of reflexive researchers; Sudo highlighted inclusive scholarly communities; Loth stressed the need for institutional responsibility in supporting mentoring systems.