Search for: All records

The skills needed for the geoscience workforce evolve as new technology and scientific knowledge are developed. However, there is a knowledge gap concerning what specific skill sets are necessary for recent graduates and what skills those graduates have acquired. To fill this knowledge gap specifically for the state of Hawai‘i, we surveyed local geoscience employers as well as alumni from the University of Hawai‘i School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST). We received survey responses from 30 employers in the public and private sectors and 30 recent SOEST graduates at the bachelor, master, and doctoral levels. Survey results indicated that, overall, Hawai‘i’s geoscience employers and SOEST alumni agree on which skills are important for geoscience employees to have. Top-rated technical skills included fieldwork/sampling, data management, and data analysis. Data visualization and geographic information system (GIS) skills/mapping were also considered important. Additionally, both groups agreed on the importance of many nontechnical skills, including technical report writing, time management, teamwork, problem-solving, interpersonal communication, and working independently. In both technical and nontechnical skills, any differences between employer and alumni responses were not statistically significant. We believe that having this clear understanding of the skill sets that are in high demand can help to broaden participation in geoscience careers in Hawai‘i. 

A workplace climate survey conducted among geoscientists at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA, was analyzed in two ways: Whole data set analysis (basic descriptive statistics were calculated for the set of responses to each climate survey item, without considering demographics) and demographic analysis (responses were examined through a demographic lens to identify any statistically significant correlations between respondents’ perceptions of climate and various aspects of their identities). The whole data set analysis revealed a strongly positive perception of the EARTH/HIGP (Department of Earth Sciences/Hawai‘i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology) workplace climate. A few areas that warrant further attention are presented at the end of the “Data and Results 1: Whole Data Set Analysis” section. The demographic analysis revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in perceptions of workplace climate. Of the 115 climate survey items examined, 78 (or 68%) showed significant differences within at least one demographic dimension. In other words, the workplace climate is perceived significantly differently by different demographic groups. Of the 18 demographic dimensions analyzed, all (100%) showed significant differences in at least one workplace climate survey item. For the vast majority of significant differences, the minoritized or marginalized groups had a more negative perception of workplace climate than the majority groups. The demographic dimension associated with the greatest number of significant differences (46) was “condition” (defined as “health conditions that impacted your learning, working or living activities in the past 12 months”). The responses of those who reported at least one condition indicated considerably greater disenfranchisement compared with those who reported no conditions. An intersectional demographic analysis was precluded due to the small sample size (n = 49), and we note this as a serious limitation. However, despite the small sample size, the fact that statistically significant results were found underscores the value of conducting climate surveys, even at a relatively small scale. 

An Individual Development Plan (IDP) is a personal action plan. IDPs can be used to set academic goals, explore career opportunities, and develop skills. During the 2022-23 academic year, we implemented IDPs with two groups in university settings: (1) graduate students and post-docs in the NASA-funded ICE-Five-O project; and (2) undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Hawai‘i. Twenty-four participants and their mentors rated various aspects of the IDP program on a scale of 1 (negative) to 5 (positive). Results were strongly positive, with means ranging from 4.1 to 4.8 for participants and from 4.2 to 4.6 for mentors. Overall, 92% of participants reported that they would recommend IDPs to their peers, and 94% of mentors reported that they would recommend IDPs as a mentoring tool. Although relatively few people (15%, or 31 of 207 eligible trainees) opted to participate, results of the pilot clearly show that those who created an IDP found the experience valuable. Future efforts will focus on maximizing participation.