Science Needs You: Mobilizing for Diversity in Award Recognition

Computing has undergone remarkable transformations over the years, with incredible advancements being achieved in numerous areas of research. These developments have been made possible by individuals from diverse backgrounds, who have brought their unique perspectives and experiences to the table. However, despite the significant strides made in promoting diversity and inclusivity in computing, there remains a disparity in the percentage of award recipients from persons from populations underrepresented in computing.

For example, the percentage of non-white ACM members has steadily increased over the last 20 years, while indicators suggest the diversity of the award recipients does not seem to reflect the increasing diversity of the ACM community.¹⁵ It is understandable to react to this issue by pointing to potential biases in the award selection process or the lagging nature of awards. However, in a study by the American Geophysical Union,¹¹ the authors found the cause is often more straightforward: persons from historically underrepresented populations are not nominated as often for such awards. In this Opinion column, we take a step back and examine the importance and process of awards and offer insights into how to make yourself part of the solution.

Diversity is widely recognized as a critical factor that contributes to success in numerous scientific disciplines.^3,9 Populations with diverse members often outperform homogenous ones,^3,9 creating more innovative solutions⁸ that lead to more impactful work.^4,14,16 This potential is especially true in the field of computing, which is now more than ever populated by people from diverse backgrounds.⁷ Universities, funding agencies, and other institutions have made concerted efforts to tap into this potential, actively promoting diversity within computing programs for these very reasons.¹ The persistence of this disparity in award recognition, despite advances in promoting diversity and inclusivity, shows the need for continued efforts to redress this imbalance.¹³ This lag might undermine the progress made thus far and emphasizes the importance of sustained initiatives to increase diversity and inclusion in this area.¹¹

The Significance of Diversity in Scientific Advancements

Scientific awards serve as a formal recognition and validation of the significant contributions made by individuals toward advancing a particular discipline or recognizing service contributions to the computing community. Importantly, awards can act as powerful motivators for aspiring professionals, particularly those persons from populations underrepresented in computing who may view awardees as inspirational trailblazers and role models. Proactive efforts around transparent and inclusive processes, targeted outreach, and expanding eligibility criteria can help address these gaps. Intersectional identities may face even greater barriers, as persons holding multiple marginalized identities might experience compounded discrimination and are the most underrepresented. Understanding and improving representation across intersections is critical. Awards also open up influential service opportunities, which can help distribute the “service tax” burden often faced by people from historically underrepresented populations if recipient diversity expands as well.

All these factors underscore the importance of responding quickly to changes in the field, ensuring individuals from underrepresented backgrounds can relate to those being recognized. Failure to do so can perpetuate the cycle of underrepresentation and detract from the progress made thus far in promoting diversity and inclusivity in scientific disciplines. By keeping pace with the changes in the field, we can create more meaningful opportunities for recognition and inspire future generations of diverse professionals to pursue their passions and make their mark on the world.

ACM Awards

ACM awards are often to people for the impact of a specific single contribution as opposed to their whole careers. Scientific awards are often lagging indicators, recognizing individuals who (in many cases) entered the field decades ago when the makeup of the field was different.¹⁰ However, ACM and its Special Interest Groups (SIGs) have made strides in bridging this gap, offering awards not just for accomplished researchers but also for early career researchers and in areas such as teaching, mentoring, and service. These awards provide a unique opportunity for recognition among the diverse talent entering the field today. It generally helps if a candidate has a track record of previous awards, so going for early career awards is helpful.

ACM, along with its SIGs, offers a diverse array of awards, acknowledging achievements at various stages of a career and in different areas of computing. This collection of awards can be categorized based on the nature and scope of the contributions recognized. The categories include long term contributions, early to mid-career contributions, specific types of contributions, student contributions, SIG awards, and regional awards.

ACM honors include the membership grade recognitions: ACM Fellow, ACM Distinguished Member, and ACM Senior Member. While not strictly awards, new Fellows are invited to the annual ACM Awards banquet where they are individually introduced. These recognitions are based on specific ACM membership requirements and signify different levels of contribution and commitment within the ACM community.

The accompanying table lists the ACM’s 28 awards and honors organized into useful categories. This organization illustrates the range and focus of each award. For instance, the ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award, a prestigious honor for early to mid-career contributions, is distinct from the ACM A.M. Turing Award received typically late in a career and the ACM Frances E. Allen Award for Outstanding Mentoring. In addition, ACM’s 38 SIGs have their own awards. While SIG awards are more focused on specific communities or conferences, they recognize the authors for their accomplishments, similar to ACM awards. Specifically, both ACM and SIG awards honor individuals, including those who have authored influential papers.

For example, SIGARCH offers these awards:

• An early career award (ACM SIGARCH Maurice Wilkes Award);

• A dissertation award (ACM SIGARCH/IEEE CS TCCA Outstanding Dissertation Award);

• A service award (ACM SIGARCH Alan D. Berenbaum Distinguished Service Award);

• A best paper award (ACM SIGARCH/IEEE-CS TCCA ISCA Best Paper Award); and

• Test of time awards for two conferences (ACM SIGARCH/IEEE-CS TCCA Influential ISCA Paper Award and ACM SIGARCH/SIGOPS/SIGPLAN ASPLOS Influential Paper Award).

The SIGs collectively offer more than 150 awards annually, presenting a significant number of award opportunities.

In addition, ACM has created collaborative awards in specific regions (see https://awards.acm.org/regional-awards). China and Japan each have one award while India has two other awards beyond the India dissertation award, as shown in the accompanying table.

Behind the Scenes of Scientific Awards: The Nomination Process

In scientific awards, the process leading to announcements and ceremonies is often a complex and lengthy one, beginning with the nominations. For ACM, this typically involves peer nominations submitted to a panel of experts for review.

ACM has implemented several initiatives aimed at identifying hidden talent during the review process. For instance, the overall Awards Committee tries to include representatives that reflect diversity in terms of gender, locale, expertise, and other perspectives where possible.^a The risk here is that individuals from majority populations or prestigious institutions are more well-known and often hold an advantage over their peers from historically underrepresented communities.^5,6,12 Because nominations require significant effort and resources, the network effect of well-connected scientists can inadvertently create systemic biases that favor those who successfully secure nominations.

Recognizing the need for greater diversity and inclusion in scientific awards, the ACM DEI Council and the Awards Committee have implemented proactive measures to address this issue. One initiative is to disseminate a video, available on the ACM DEI Council website,^b that discusses the nomination process and the need to diversify the nomination pool.

Another initiative is the ACM Shepherds program,^c which acknowledges three key factors:

1. The effort required in the nomination process;

2. The variability in the level of involvement required for different awards; and

3. Unfamiliarity on how to write a nomination.

This program seeks to address these issues by connecting nominators with past awardees or members of the Awards Committee who are willing to provide help. By leveraging the expertise and experience of past awardees and committee members, the program aims to remove barriers to participation and elevate the visibility of deserving individuals who may have been overlooked in the past. The pilot offering of the ACM Shepherds program focused on a subset of the awards, with a wider rollout in 2024.

The ACM Shepherds program, paired with a nomination guide^d prepared by the ACM Awards Committee chairs offers further guidance of value to everyone. Through initiatives such as the ACM Shepherds program, we can work toward creating a more equitable and inclusive system of recognition in the scientific community, one that reflects the diversity of talent and perspectives that make computing vibrant.

How to Create an Effective Nomination

An excellent way to learn how to write a successful nomination is to serve on an award committee, to talk to recent nominators, and to access both the nomination guide and the video as mentioned above (located on the ACM DEI Council website²). Issues the awards committee considers, which should be addressed by the nomination package, include:

• ➣

  What is the accomplishment?

• ➣

  Does the size of the impact of the accomplishment meet the expectations for the award?

• ➣

  Are the candidates the right people to get this award for this accomplishment? Is anyone missing?

A nomination typically includes three to five endorser letters in support. The strongest case would have a nominator from a different organization than the candidate, and no more than one or two endorser letters from the candidate’s colleagues. A good nominator knows the candidate’s work well, is sufficiently dependable to submit the nomination by the deadline, follows through so all endorsers’ letters support the nomination, and is familiar with criteria for that award.

Various organizations, including professional societies, university departments, and industry groups, often establish awards committees with the goal of facilitating the recognition of their members or colleagues. Such committees create a database of nominations and letter writers, as the information collected for one award is often helpful for others either for later in a career or for the other awards from SIGs and IEEE. By offering to collect whatever is needed for the nomination and suggesting people to write letters of support, the awards committee also makes it much easier for someone outside their organization to write or endorse a nomination.

Science Needs You

Awards committees do not pick recipients randomly; they pick from the nominations submitted to the committee. If you want to diversify the awardees, you need to help diversify the nomination pool. Besides submitting nominations yourself, another opportunity is to help form committees that organize and collect nominations and supporters for reuse on multiple awards opportunities. By participating, we can help ensure initiatives such as the ACM Shepherds program have a greater impact and can contribute to creating a more inclusive and equitable system of recognition in the scientific community.