Geosciences remain one of the least diverse fields. Efforts to diversify the discipline need to address the role of hostile and exclusionary work and learning environments. A workplace climate survey distributed to five professional organizations illustrates varied experiences of earth and space scientists over a 12‐month period (pre‐COVID). A majority experienced positive interactions in the workplace. However, scientists of color, women and non‐binary individuals, scientists with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, and asexual (LGBQPA+) scientists more frequently experienced negative interactions, including interpersonal mistreatment, discriminatory language, and sexual harassment. Geoscientists of color were more likely to experience devaluation of their work than white scientists. More than half of women and non‐binary respondents, as well as those who identify as LGBQPA+ experienced identity‐based discriminatory remarks. Disabled geoscientists were more likely to hear negative identity‐based language than those who did not disclose a disability. Overall, 14% of all respondents experienced sexual harassment in the previous year. Rates were greatest for historically excluded groups: non‐binary (51%), LGBQPA+ (33%), disabled (26%), women (20%), and geoscientists of color (17%). A majority of geoscientists reported avoiding their colleagues and almost a third considered leaving their institution or a career change. Historically excluded groups were more likely to report opting out of professional activities with potential career consequences. To address continued exclusion and low retention in the earth and space sciences, recruitment is not enough. We need to create environments that ensure opportunities for all to thrive.
Hostile climates are barriers to diversifying the geosciences
The geosciences are one of the least diverse disciplines in the United States, despite the field's relevance to livelihoods and local and global economies. Bias, discrimination, and harassment present serious hurdles to diversifying the field. These behaviors persist due to historical structures of exclusion, severe power imbalances, unique challenges associated with geoscientist stereotypes, and a culture of impunity that tolerates exclusionary behaviors and marginalization of scholars from underserved groups. We summarize recent research on exclusionary behaviors that create hostile climates and contribute to persistent low retention of diverse groups in the geosciences and other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. We then discuss recent initiatives in the US by geoscience professional societies and organizations, including the National Science Foundation-supported ADVANCEGeo Partnership, to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion by improving workplace climate. Social networks and professional organizations can transform scientific culture through providing opportunities for mentorship and community building and counteracting professional isolation that can result from experiencing hostile behaviors, codifying ethical practice, and advocating for policy change. We conclude with a call for a reexamination of current institutional structures, processes, and practices for a transformational and equitable scientific enterprise. To be truly successful, cultural and behavioral changes need to be accompanied by reeducation about the historical political structures of academic institutions to start conversations about the real change that has to happen for a transformational and equitable scientific enterprise.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10286089
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Advances in geosciences
- Volume:
- 53
- ISSN:
- 1680-7340
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 117-127
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Science as an enterprise has been and continues to be exclusionary, perpetuating inequities among whose voice is heard as well as what/whose knowledge is recognized as valid. Women, people of color, and persons with disabilities are still vastly outnumbered in science and engineering by their White, male counterparts. These types of imbalances create a gatekeeping culture of inequity and inaccessibility, particularly for traditionally underrepresented students. Science classrooms, especially at the undergraduate level, strive to mimic the broader practices of the scientific community and therefore have tremendous potential to perpetuate the exclusion of certain groups of people. They also have, however, the potential to be a catalyst for equitable participation in science. Utilizing pedagogies of empowerment such as culturally responsive science teaching (CRST) in undergraduate classrooms can mitigate the gatekeeping phenomenon seen in science. Teaching assistants (TAs) engage in more one‐on‐one time with students than most faculty in undergraduate biology education, yet minimal pedagogical training is offered to them. Therefore, training for improved pedagogical knowledge is important for TAs, but training for CRST is critical as TAs have broad and potentially lasting impact on students. This study explores the ways in which undergraduate biology TAs enact CRST. Using constructivist grounded theory methods, this study examined TAs' reflections, observation field notes, semistructured interviews, and focus groups to develop themes surrounding their enactment of CRST. Findings from this study showed that undergraduate biology TAs enact CRST in ways described by four themes:
Funds of Knowledge Connections ,Differentiating Instruction ,Intentional Scaffolding , andReducing Student Anxiety . These findings provide new insights into the ways undergraduate science education might be reimagined to create equitable science learning opportunities for all students. -
Background: Even though Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs) make up only 3% of higher education's institutions, they play a pivotal role in producing Black scientists by virtue of the fact that many received either their undergraduate or doctorate degree from a HBCU. HBCUs are credited with providing a more supportive and nurturing environment that thrives on communal mindsets and practices, emphasizing the importance of relationships, offering opportunities for Black students to "see themselves" as part of the academic and social milieu whereas Historically White Institutions (HWIS) are characterized as being hostile and discriminatory. Mentoring is said to be pivotal in the attainment of the PhD. Mentorships have an inherent gatekeeping mechanism, better positioning those who receive effective mentorships while disadvantaging those who do not. It has potential to harm and marginalize when not engaged with deliberate care and a culturally liberative mindset. Mentoring, when not under the thumb of colonizing mindsets, can contribute to more equitable experiences and outcomes for students who hail from AGEP population groups. Literature has indicated that Black students are less likely to have a mentor or be engaged in effective mentorships. The HBCU narrative of supportive environment is consistently told but has scant empirical validation for Black students pursuing STEM doctoral degrees. In fact, the lure of having faculty and peers who look like you is something of an enigma given that even at HBCUs there are limited numbers of Black faculty in STEM. How are same race, same gender mentorships attained when, not unlike their HWIS counterparts, HBCU STEM faculties have a large number of White and Asian men? If the environment is indeed different at HBCUs, is it different for Black STEM doctoral students? Is STEM doctoral mentoring at HBCUs emblematic of anti-Blackness or is it yet another tool used to oppress marginalized students? Theoretical Framework: Anti-black racism and critical capital theory serve as critical theoretical frameworks and were selected because they highlight the ways violence is enacted through taken for granted colonized practices such as mentoring. Fanon understood that thoughts and mindsets are the progenitors of violence and dehumanization is the process through which violence is enacted. Anti-black racism and critical capital theory can be useful in unearthing the structural inequalities that uphold the current system in place for STEM doctoral learning. Research Design: An embedded multiple qualitative case study research project sought to understand the nature and quality of STEM doctoral mentorships at an HBCU. The analysis on the HBCU subcase asked, how are STEM doctoral mentorships understood by Black STEM doctoral students at HBCUs? Black STEM HBCU students were interviewed and completed a mentoring competency assessment survey. In addition STEM doctoral students from three universities also completed the survey. The qualitative data was analyzed using narrative analysis and the survey data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. This project is part of a larger NSF AGEP sponsored research study. Research findings: The findings from this study expose that Black STEM doctoral students at HBCUs have not reached the proverbial Promise Land. In spite of being in a space that is more diverse, they manage to simultaneously be invisible and hypervisible. An unmerited sense of assumed cultural belonging was highlighted with students reporting a lack of selfethnic reflectors in their programs. In many ways the systemic and institutional structures on HBCUs with respect to STEM doctoral programming mirrored the colonial structures more often associated with HWIS. Their culture and cultural-based experiences as domestic students as well as their academic strengths were often not recognized by mentors while that of international students were. Three themes were supported by the data: Conspicuous Absence, Race Still Matters, and Invisibilized Hypervisibility. Implications: Better understanding how STEM doctoral mentoring is facilitated at HBCUs holds the promise of informing a mentoring practice that supports cultural liberation instead of cultural degradation and suppression. It becomes one avenue as the “The Call'' suggests to "confront our own complicity in the colonial enterprise" by holding STEM doctoral mentors and the institutions they represent accountable for socially just mentoring practices. Greater intentionality as well as mandated training informed by the study's results are recommended. HBCU faculty doctoral mentors are challenged to be scholar activists who engage mentoring from an advocacy and accomplice framework. The development of STEM scholar activists is the aspiration of more culturally liberative STEM doctoral mentorships. Black students need mentors who are willing and equipped to be advocates and accomplices in their success.more » « less
-
The geosciences have to solve increasingly complex problems relating to earth and society, as resources become limited, natural hazards and changes in climate impact larger communities, and as people interacting with Earth become more interconnected. However, the profession has dismally low representation from geoscientists who are from diverse racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as women in leadership roles. This underrepresentation also includes individuals whose gender identity/expression is non-binary or gender-conforming, or those who have physical, cognitive, or emotional disabilities. This lack of diversity ultimately impacts our profession’s ability to produce our best science and work with the communities that we strive to protect and serve as stewards of the earth. As part of the NSF GOLD solicitation, we developed a project (Geoscience Diversity Experiential Simulations) to train 30 faculty and administrators to be “champions for diversity” and combat the hostile climates in geoscience departments. We hosted a 3-day workshop in November that used virtual simulations to give participants experience in building the skills to react to situations regarding bias, discrimination, microaggressions, or bullying often cited in geoscience culture. Participants interacted with avatars on screen, who responded to participants’ actions and choices, given certain scenarios. The scenarios are framed within a geoscience perspective; we integrated qualitative interview data from informants who experienced inequitable judgement, bias, discrimination, or harassment during their geoscience careers. The simulations gave learners a safe environment to practice and build self-efficacy in how to professionally and productively engage peers in difficult conversations. In addition, we obtained pre-workshop survey data about participants’ understanding regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion practices, as well as observation data of participants’ responses during the simulations. Follow-up activities include monthly online meetings to engage problem solving and strategy-building skills for catalyzing institutional culture change within departments. This talk will specifically focus on workshop observations and preliminary reactions to the training.more » « less
-
The lack of diversity and inclusion has been a major challenge affecting engineering programs all over the United States. This problem has been persistent over the years and has been difficult to address despite considerable amount of attention, enriched conversations, and money that has been put towards addressing it. One of the reasons behind this lack of diversity could be the presence of exclusionary behaviors, such as bias and discrimination that permeate the culture of engineering. To address this “wicked” problem, a deeper understanding of current culture and of potential change strategies toward integrating inclusion and diversity is necessary. Our larger NSF funded research project seeks to achieve this understanding through design thinking. While design thinking has been documented to successfully achieve desired outcomes for numerous other problems, its effectiveness as a tool to understand and solve the “wicked problem” of transformation of disciplinary culture related to diversity and inclusion in engineering is not yet known. This Work-in-Progress paper will address the effectiveness of using a design thinking approach by answering the research question: How did stakeholder participants perceive the impact of design sessions on their understanding and value of diversity and inclusion in the professional formation of biomedical engineers? To address this research question, our research team is coordinating six design sessions within each of two engineering schools: Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and Biomedical Engineering (BME) at a large Midwest University. Currently, we have completed the initial phases of the design sessions in the BME school, and hence this paper focuses on insights from preliminary data analysis of BME Design sessions. BME design sessions were conducted with 15 key stakeholders from the program including students, faculty, staff and administrators. Each of the six design session was two hours long. The research team facilitated the inspiration and ideation phase of the design thinking process throughout. Facilitation involved providing prompts and activities to guide the stakeholders through the design thinking processes of problem identification, problem scoping, and prototype solution generation related to diversity and inclusion within the school culture. A mixed-methods approach involving both qualitative and quantitative data analysis is being used to evaluate the efficacy of design thinking as a tool to address diversity and inclusion in professional formation of engineers. Artifacts such as journey maps, culture maps, and design notebooks generated by our stakeholders throughout the design sessions will be qualitatively analyzed to evaluate the role and effectiveness of design thinking in shaping a more diverse and inclusive culture within BME and, eventually ECE. Following the design sessions, participants were interviewed one-on-one to understand how their thoughts about diversity and inclusion in professional formation of biomedical engineers may have changed, and to gather participants’ self-assessment of the design process. Coupled with the interviews, an online survey was administered to assess the participants’ ranking of the solutions generated at the conclusion design sessions in terms of their novelty, importance and feasibility for implementation within their school. This Work-in-Progress paper will discuss relevant findings from initial quantitative analyses of the data collected from the post-design session surveys and is an interim report evaluating participants’ perceptions of the impact of these design sessions on their understanding of diversity and inclusion in professional formation of biomedical engineers.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-53-117-2020
