Search for: All records

In the U.S., navigating STEM with marginalized identities can affect scientists' communication practices. There is a critical need for science communication training that accounts for the historical oppressions, discriminations, and inequities of marginalized communities. In this paper we analyzed 712 participant responses from ReclaimingSTEM science communication workshops to understand how marginalized scientists' identities influence their science communication practices. We found that participants' experiences of exclusion and hostility in STEM spaces influenced their engagement in science communication. Scientists from marginalized backgrounds aim to change the culture of STEM through their communication efforts to promote a sense of belonging for their communities. 

The dominant U.S. cultural norms shape science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), and in turn, these norms shape science communication, further perpetuating oppressive systems. Despite being a core scientific skill, science communication research and practice lack inclusive training spaces that center marginalized identities. We address this need with a healing-centered counterspace grounded in the key principles of inclusive science communication: ReclaimingSTEM. ReclaimingSTEM is a science communication and science policy training space that centers the experiences, needs, and wants of people from marginalized communities. ReclaimingSTEM problematizes and expands the definitions of “what counts” as science communication. We organize ReclaimingSTEM with intentionality, emphasizing inclusion at every part of the process. Since initiating in 2018, five ReclaimingSTEM workshops have been held in multiple locations, both in-person and virtually, reaching more than 700 participants from all over the globe. In this paper, we share our model for ReclaimingSTEM, reflections of workshop participants and speakers, barriers faced during organizing, and recommendations for creating truly inclusive practices in science communication spaces. 

Nondisclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, asexual, or otherwise queer (LGBTQA) identities in the workplace is both common and stressful to those who do not disclose. However, we lack direct evidence that nondisclosure of LGBTQA identity affects worker productivity. In two surveys of LGBTQA-identified scientists, we found that those who did not disclose LGBTQA identities in professional settings authored fewer peer-reviewed publications—a concrete productivity cost. In the second survey, which included straight and cisgender participants as a comparison group, we found that LGBTQA participants who disclosed their sexual orientation had publication counts more like non-LGBTQA participants than those who did not disclose, and that all three groups had similar time since first publication given their academic career stage. These results are most consistent with a productivity cost to nondisclosure of LGBTQA identity in professional settings, and suggest a concrete need to improve scientific workplace climates for sexual and gender minorities. 

Rampant gender-based harassment and discrimination are recognized problems that negatively impact efforts to diversify science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. We explored the particularities of this phenomenon in the geosciences, via focus groups conducted at STEM professional society meetings, with the goal of informing interventions specific to the discipline. Using grounded theory analysis, two primary drivers for the persistence and perpetuation of gender-based harassment in the geosciences were identified: a particular history of power dynamics and maintenance of dominant stereotypes, and a pattern of ineffective responses to incidents of harassment and discrimination. Informed by intersectional feminist scholarship by women of color that illustrates how efforts to address the underrepresentation of women in STEM without attending to the overlapping impacts of racism, colonialism, ableism, and classism will not succeed, we view harassment and discrimination as structural problems that require collective solutions. Continuing to recruit individuals into a discipline without changing its fundamental nature can tokenize and isolate them or encourage assimilation and acceptance of deep-seated traditions no matter how damaging. It is the responsibility of those in power, and especially those who hold more privileged status due to their social identities, to contribute to the dismantling of current structures that reinforce inequity. By providing explanatory illustrative examples drawn from first-person accounts we aim to humanize the numbers reported in workplace climate surveys, address gaps in knowledge specific to the geosciences, and identify interventions aligned with an intersectional framework that aim to disrupt discriminatory practices endemic to the geosciences and larger STEM community. 

Abstract 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.