Different Ways of Knowing: Evidence, Bias, and DEI

In this first reflective episode, I step back from the usual guest format to explain why I’m including reflection episodes in this series.

I come from a science background, and something I’ve always cared about is not just what we know, but how we know it. Even within the biological sciences, different questions require different methods, types of evidence, and levels of analysis — especially when systems are complex. That challenge becomes even more pronounced in the social sciences.

I use Diversity, Equality and Inclusion as a case study of that complexity. DEI sits at the intersection of individual psychology, group dynamics, organisational systems, and moral and political values — which helps explain why people working in this space often focus on different parts of the problem and propose very different kinds of solutions.

Drawing on conversations with Paulo Galliano, Sarah Taylor, and Katherine McCord, I explore three distinct approaches to DEI: measurement- and outcomes-focused work, experiential and practitioner-led insight, and framework- and research-informed interpretation.

I also reflect on why bias — and bias training — has become a contentious topic, where it can be most useful, and how its importance varies depending on context and stage, from hiring to life inside organisations.

Rather than deciding who is right or wrong, this episode is about unpacking what different kinds of evidence can and can’t do, and how listening more carefully to those differences can help us make better sense of complex social issues.

Next week, the podcast returns to the usual guest format.