Abstract:The US professional astronomy and astrophysics fields are not representative of the diversity of people in the nation. For example, 2017 AIP reports show that in 2014, women made up only about 20 percent of the faculty in astronomy and physics departments, and the numbers for under-represented minorities (men and women) were, and remain, low. However numerous studies have demonstrated that diverse groups (in both cognition and identity) outperform groups that are more homogeneous, even when the homogeneous group is comprised of all "high achieving experts." (Hong and Page, 2004, Kleinberg and Raghu, 2018). This has been shown to be the case on a variety of complex tasks. Thus, if we want the best opportunity to make progress on and answer the research questions of the 2020s, we must employ diverse teams who bring different heuristics and perspectives to those problems. However, currently in the field there are few tangible motivations to encourage projects, missions or programs to employ teams that are diverse in both cognitive areas and identity to take on these complex problems. Managing groups and organizations contracted to run these efforts are currently not required or incentivized to employ an identity diverse workforce. In this position (white) paper, we recommend that agency funding (from NSF, NASA, DOE, etc.), especially for missions, projects and programs, encourage the development and retention of diverse teams by requiring documentation of and progress on metrics related to diversity, inclusion and equity. We further recommend that documented progress on diversity and inclusion metrics should be monitored in reviews alongside project management and budget reporting. Managing groups and organizations proposing to administer projects on behalf of agencies should be required to demonstrate competency with respect to diversity and inclusion metrics.

Impact of Declining Proposal Success Rates on Scientific Productivity

NASA Astrophysics Division Research and Analysis Program Statistics for the Period 2001-2009

To Apply or Not to Apply: A Survey Analysis of Grant Writing Costs and Benefits

Rethinking Resource Allocation in Science

White Paper on Improvements to the NASA Research and Analysis Proposal and Review System

Toward predicting research proposal success

Astro2020 APC White Paper: Tying Research Funding to Progress on Inclusion

Small Platforms, High Return: The Need to Enhance Investment in Small Satellites for Focused Science, Career Development, and Improved Equity

Gender-based Systematics in HST Proposal Selection

Flipping the grant application review process

Who cares about physics today? A marketing strategy for the survival of fundamental science and the benefit of society

Astro2020 APT White Paper: "Mind the gap": a call to redesign astronomy graduate education

A Proposal for a Renewed Research Emphasis in Astrophysical and Celestial Dynamics

Astro2020 APC White Paper: Findings and Recommendations from the AAS Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy: Advancing the Career Development of Women in Astronomy

Challenges facing young astrophysicists

Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline

A Network Perspective on Success in Collaboration: Stop Citing Me for Our Own Good?

Mapping the "long tail" of research funding: A topic analysis of NSF grant proposals in the Division of Astronomical Sciences

Educating the Next Generation of Leading Scientists: Turning Ideas into Action

Scientific Productivity, Research Funding, Race and Ethnicity

The importance of quality in austere times: University competitiveness and grant income