AIR 3.0

Roadmap to Authentically Inclusive Representation in Film & Television

About the Study

Over the last several years, the Center for Scholars & Storytellers at UCLA has conducted a series of studies showing how Authentic Inclusive Representation both on and off screen is not only better for society, but also better for the industry’s bottom line. In this new report, we explore qualitative interviews with writers, directors, producers, studio representatives, expert consultants, and advocacy organizations to provide actionable guidance on how storytellers can achieve this type of authentic inclusive representation in film and television projects to better resonate with viewers, score more favorable ratings, and make more money at the box office.

Download the Full Report

Main Findings

1: Build diverse, empowered teams.

2: Balance lived experience with broader perspectives.

3: Engage with consultants, and start early.

4: Balance financial goals with cultural impact.

5: Develop characters with specificity.

6: Build rich, contextualized story worlds.

7: Justify creative choices, but pick your battles.

8: Engage the cast and production crew.

9: Make accessibility the norm.

10: Align marketing and publicity with authentic storytelling.

Download the Full Report

How to Cite This Report: 

Reed, P. A., Lazar, L., Hines, A., & Uhls, Y. T. (2025). Roadmap to authentically inclusive representation in film & television. Center for Scholars & Storytellers. https://www.scholarsandstorytellers.com/airroadmap


“Authentically Inclusive Representation” (AIR) refers to the presence of individuals from diverse backgrounds both on screen and behind the scenes. It involves crafting storylines and characters that genuinely reflect the cultures being portrayed, avoiding the use of stereotypes or reductive tropes, and ensuring true diversity in storytelling.

During our interviews, we asked creatives, studio representatives, and expert consultants to reflect on how they define AIR. Several themes emerged:

The Business Case for AIR

AIR 2.5
Read Now

AIR 2.0

Read Now

AIR 1.0
Read Now

AIR 3.0 Case Studies

Several titles were chosen as case studies for AIR. These titles underscore that AIR is achievable across a range of productions--spanning film and TV, independent projects and major studio releases, small to large budgets. These findings highlight that AIR is not confined to specific industry segments or budgets, but is a product of intentional decision-making and a commitment to authentic storytelling at every level of production. Please refer to the qualitative methods section for more information about how these case studies were produced.

High Scoring AIR Titles

We collaborated with expert consultants and advocacy organizations to nominate and score films and TV shows released in 2023 and 2024. See our additional high-scoring AIR titles here.

Practical Guidance

We asked creatives, studio representations, and expert consultants to share their words of advice for storytellers and decision-makers in the entertainment industry. The following themes emerged across our 31 interviewees and 24 survey respondents:

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Dennis St. Rose at Full Story Initiative/CAA Foundation, Sanaz Alesafar at Storyline Partners, and Maha Chehlaoui at Think Tank for Inclusion & Equity.


Thank you to Grace Bui-Luu and Hanruo Shan, our fantastic CSS interns.

Thank You to Our Funder

This research and report were made possible thanks to the generous support of the Nielsen Foundation.

Methodology

Quantitative Methods

  • We surveyed studios, advocacy organizations, and our internal CSS team to nominate films and TV shows released between 2023 and 2024 for consideration in our report. From June to July 2024, we collected 120 unique title nominations via Qualtrics.

  • For each nominated title, we conducted online research to categorize it based on AIR themes, with a strong emphasis on intersectionality. This process involved analyzing critical and audience ratings, reviews, journalistic coverage, and social media discussions to ensure a comprehensive assessment of inclusion and representation. Thematic tags were:


    • Race & Ethnicity

      • Asian / Pacific Islander

      • Black / African Descent

      • Latino / Hispanic

      • Middle Eastern / North African

      • Native / Indigenous

      • Muslim

    • Health & Ability

      • Disability

      • Alzheimer’s/dementia

      • Mental & Emotional Health

    • Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation

      • Women

      • LGBTQ+

    • Social & Cultural Themes

      • Aging & Intergenerational Relationships

      • Immigrant

  • For each of our partner advocacy organizations, we curated a list of nominated titles that aligned thematically with their mission using our tagging results. From September to October 2024, we gathered AIR scores for nominated titles from 13 partner organizations via Qualtrics. One additional organization and two media/cultural scholars were invited to provide supplementary ratings for select titles at a later date to enhance thematic coverage.

    Before scoring, each participant confirmed that the title fell within their area of expertise and that they had viewed the title. If so, they then evaluated the title using a 1-star (Poor) to 5-star (Excellent) scale based on three criteria:

    1. To what extent does this movie/TV show add nuance or complexity to a general audience’s understanding of the culture or group it represents?

    2. To what extent does the story or character development avoid problematic or harmful stereotypes/tropes?

    3. How well does the movie/TV show achieve AIR overall?

    The AIR score was calculated as the average of these three items, with raters also providing open-ended commentary to elaborate on their assessments. Each title’s final AIR score was the average of all raters’ scores.

    In total, we obtained at least one AIR score for 100 of the 120 nominated films and TV shows. The mean AIR score was 4.35 (SD = 0.61), ranging from 2.61 to 5.0. Each title was rated by an average of two reviewers, with the number of raters ranging from 1 to 6. Previous AIR reports established 3.5 as the normative AIR score; given that our dataset included only nominated titles, the higher average AIR score was anticipated.

    Since our quantitative analysis was designed to guide the next phase of qualitative research, we identified titles from 2023/2024 with an average AIR score of 4.0 or higher and at least two raters. These titles, categorized as “high AIR,” were shortlisted for further investigation into the creative and production processes behind their storytelling.

    Advocacy Partners

    1. 1in4 Coalition

    2. Better Life Lab at New America

    3. Caring Across Generations

    4. Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment (CAPE)

    5. Define American

    6. Geena Davis Institute

    7. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)

    8. IllumiNative

    9. Inevitable Foundation

    10. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

    11. National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC)

    12. Pasifika Entertainment Advancement Komiti (PEAK)

    13. Storyline Partners

    Guest Raters:

    1. I. Augustus Durham, PhD

    2. Tieranni Parquet, PhD Candidate, MHS, LPC

    3. SoCal Pacific Islander Community Response Team

Qualitative Methods

  • To understand the creative and production choices behind AIR achievement, we conducted in-depth interviews with writers, directors, producers, studio representatives, and advocacy organizations that contributed to our short-list of high AIR titles and/or supported creatives behind the scenes.

    Our interview protocol explored the decision-making processes that led to AIR success, examined challenges and opportunities in production, and captured perspectives on integrating diversity and inclusion into storytelling.

    We contacted potential interviewees through our own and our partners’ contact lists. Between November 2024 and February 2025, interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews lasted 35 to 65 minutes. Transcripts were cleaned using OtterAI and analyzed through thematic and narrative analysis to develop case studies and extract key insights for our roadmap.

    Additional studio insights to inform our findings were collected on background.

    Participants

    1. Sanaz Alesafar, Executive Director, Storyline Partners

    2. Lauren Appelbaum*, Senior Vice President of Entertainment and Media, DisabilityBelongs

    3. Michelle Asgarali*, Series Producer, The Squeaky Wheel

    4. Saga Darnell, Head of Research and Public Affairs, Inevitable Foundation

    5. Violet Elliott, Producer, The Squeaky Wheel; Member, 1in4 Coalition

    6. Barbara Friend, Co-Executive Producer, Fire Country; Former Researcher, Grey’s Anatomy; Former Writer, Station 19

    7. David Marshall Grant, Executive Producer, A Million Little Things

    8. Karen Horne, Executive Coach & Consultant

    9. Kalikolehua Hurley*, Senior Manager of Cultural Trust, Walt Disney Animation Studios

    10. Erin Jordan, Executive Director, Corporate Social Responsibility, Paramount Pictures

    11. Grace Kao*, Chief of Staff, Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment

    12. Kenny Ng*, Programs Manager, Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment

    13. Vanni Le*, Senior Manager of Entertainment Partnerships, DisabilityBelongs

    14. Dana Ledoux Miller, Co-Writer & Co-Director, Moana 2; Co-Founder, Pasifika Entertainment Advancement Komiti

    15. Rhian Moore*, Head of Programs, Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment

    16. Andrew Morris*, President & Executive Partner, Hitsby Entertainment

    17. DJ Nash, Creator & Executive Producer, A Million Little Things

    18. Ashley DuPont Nyaley*, Senior Director of Marketing and Communications, DisabilityBelongs

    19. Sheridan O'Donnell, Director & Writer, Little Brother

    20. Sue Obedi, Senior Vice President of the Hollywood Bureau, Muslim Public Affairs Council

    21. Dulce Valencia Sanchez, Associate Director of Entertainment Partnerships, Define American

    22. Kristian Fanene Schmidt, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Pasifika Entertainment Advancement Komiti

    23. Vicki Shabo, Founder & Director, Entertainment-Focused Narrative and Cultural Change Practice, Better Life Lab at New America

    24. Dr. Grishma Shah, Founder, LaGrish; Entertainment Psychologist, 1in4 Coalition

    25. Lydia Storie, Director of Culture Change, Caring Across Generations

    26. Michelle K. Sugihara*, Executive Director, Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment

    27. Mimi Won Techentin, Supervising Producer, A Million Little Things

    28. Julio Torres, Writer, Director, Producer, and Actor, Problemista

    29. Jes Vũ, Head of Communications, Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment

    30. Meredith Wieck, Senior Vice President, Lionsgate

    31. Kristina Woo, Writer, A Million Little Things

    *Interview conducted with multiple participants.

  • To supplement our interview data with additional perspectives, we conducted a qualitative survey adapted from our interview protocol. Between October 2024 and January 2025, we collected responses from 24 members of the Think Tank for Inclusion & Equity, an organization of working TV writers dedicated to authentic storytelling and advocating for equitable working conditions, particularly for writers from underrepresented communities. While contact information was gathered for verification, participants remained anonymous for our report. We analyzed survey responses using thematic analysis and narrative analysis, incorporating findings into our roadmap.

  • Our backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives as researchers shape the questions we ask, the way we interpret data, and the narratives we construct from our findings. We have prioritized a rigorous and balanced approach by centering the perspectives of our interviewees, allowing their experiences and insights to guide our analysis. To foster authenticity, we created a respectful and open environment where interviewees could share their experiences candidly, ensuring their voices were accurately represented in our findings. Ultimately, we take responsibility for the interpretation of these findings, recognizing that they reflect our understanding of participants’ perspectives—expressed through our words.