Within the last five years, within Australia at least, there has been an increased focus on equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Research shows that  women (female and female-identifying participants) from all disciplines and career stages about their experiences, the challenges women face around the world are remarkably – and horribly – consistent. The same biases and stereotypes transcend cultural and geographical boundaries. But it is only once you start to look at where these boundaries are, and how different identities overlap, that you can begin to see that some people experience even more biases and prejudicial stereotypes, and these compound their disadvantage.

This compounding effect of different parts of one’s identity – coined by Kimberle Crenshaw as intersectionality – is complex to measure, understand and ultimately address in equity and diversity initiatives. Yet within STEM disciplines, including science communication, there are increasing calls for more inclusive practice and to address the intersectional issues which prevent the full participation of the communities served.

How, then, do we know what works? What is effective practice and what does it look like? How can we identify success? There doesn’t appear to be much in the literature which addresses these questions. The simple truth is evaluation of science engagement programs designed to increase equity and diversity tends to be superficial, if it is done at all.