Geoscience is plagued with structural and systemic barriers that prevent people of historically excluded groups from fully participating in, contributing to, and accruing the benefits of geosciences. A change in the culture of our learning and working environments is required to dismantle barriers and promote belonging, accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in our field. Inspired by a session organized at the 2020 Ocean Sciences Meeting, the goal of this paper is to provide a consolidated summary of a few innovative and broadening participation initiatives that are being led by various stakeholders in academia (e.g., students, faculty, administrative leaders) at different institutional levels (e.g., universities, professional societies). The authors hope that the strategies outlined in this paper will inspire the coastal, ocean, and marine science community to take individual and collective actions that lead to a positive culture change.
Professional and scientific societies are increasingly engaging in efforts to create a science community that manifests justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). However, progress assessment is challenging, and opportunities for community feedback are limited. During the 2022 Ocean Sciences Meeting, the Oceanography Society (TOS) JEDI committee led an interactive Town Hall to collect feedback from conference participants and TOS membership on three themes: challenges, initiatives, and opportunities related to advancing JEDI in ocean sciences. This Town Hall was preceded by a survey that was administered to the TOS membership. Survey respondents and Town Hall participants provided valuable observations and synthesis on the past, present, and future of JEDI work in ocean sciences. Discussion included both positive efforts and outcomes of JEDI work as well as harmful and ineffective practices. This paper synthesizes feedback received and highlights ways in which the ocean sciences community and professional and scientific societies can advance similar work. Gatekeeping, a system of implicit or explicit cultural and institutional constraints to and requirements for entry into a field, was identified as the most significant challenge to diversifying the ocean sciences. The majority of survey respondents agreed that efforts to broaden participation have been successful, and identified specific initiatives that have been effective, including the development and support of mentorship and training programs and partnerships with minority-serving institutions. Some challenges to advancing JEDI initiatives include targeted recruitment from the most “elite” institutions and “parachute science.” Respondents agreed that professional and scientific societies have an important role to play in advancing JEDI in ocean sciences. Participants discussed strategies to broaden participation, including efforts that can be employed by professional and scientific societies such as regular data collection on demographics, improved information sharing, and stricter codes of conduct at professional meetings. We conclude by summarizing some new TOS-led initiatives that are designed to promote JEDI in ocean sciences and beyond.
The science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research enterprise is slow to change (Behl et al., 2021;Morris, 2021), and as suggested by Marín-Spiotta et al. (2020), change will require reexamination of current policies, programs, and processes. Committees influence policies, personnel, funding, and as such, committee members serve as "gatekeepers," which deserves special attention in the Earth and space sciences. When members and/or entire committees work without interrogation of their values, ideas and perspectives, exclusionary practices and behaviors persist. Committees in the STEM enterprise have different goals and charters, and engage in the act of gatekeeping. Naturally the scope of the gatekeeping role varies widely because committee duties vary widely, and they are embedded in larger institutional and social systems.We, the Coastal and Ocean STEM Equity Alliance, propose a "regenerative gatekeeping" framework that integrates belonging, accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, and recasts gatekeepers as stewards rather than sentinels. We would like to imagine gatekeeping as more than a system that controls or limits access but rather as a process that cultivates "stewards of innovation" or "agents of change." As implied by its definition, regeneration alludes to frameworks that foster renewal, dismantling barriers (Berhe et al., 2021) and maximizing opportunities, and advancing beyond the current state. Regenerative gatekeeping has three components: self-assessing committees and their policies and practices, asking critical questions, and engaging in generative conflict. By "regenerative gatekeeping," we join others who propose recent qualifiers in other arenas in the United States, for example, restorative justice, transformative resilience, transformative justice (Kaba et al., 2018), generative conflict (Anderson, 2021), and emergent strategy/emergent design (Brown, 2017). This new framework will move us closer to the intentionality, accountability (Anderson, 2021), and clarity required to transform the STEM research enterprise. Given the foundational nature of committee service to the STEM research enterprise, we believe that embracing this new framework holds great untapped potential.
The science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research enterprise is slow to change (Behl et al., 2021;Morris, 2021), and as suggested by Marín-Spiotta et al. (2020), change will require reexamination of current policies, programs, and processes. Committees influence policies, personnel, funding, and as such, committee members serve as "gatekeepers," which deserves special attention in the Earth and space sciences. When members and/or entire committees work without interrogation of their values, ideas and perspectives, exclusionary practices and behaviors persist. Committees in the STEM enterprise have different goals and charters, and engage in the act of gatekeeping. Naturally the scope of the gatekeeping role varies widely because committee duties vary widely, and they are embedded in larger institutional and social systems.We, the Coastal and Ocean STEM Equity Alliance, propose a "regenerative gatekeeping" framework that integrates belonging, accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, and recasts gatekeepers as stewards rather than sentinels. We would like to imagine gatekeeping as more than a system that controls or limits access but rather as a process that cultivates "stewards of innovation" or "agents of change." As implied by its definition, regeneration alludes to frameworks that foster renewal, dismantling barriers (Berhe et al., 2021) and maximizing opportunities, and advancing beyond the current state. Regenerative gatekeeping has three components: self-assessing committees and their policies and practices, asking critical questions, and engaging in generative conflict. By "regenerative gatekeeping," we join others who propose recent qualifiers in other arenas in the United States, for example, restorative justice, transformative resilience, transformative justice (Kaba et al., 2018), generative conflict (Anderson, 2021), and emergent strategy/emergent design (Brown, 2017). This new framework will move us closer to the intentionality, accountability (Anderson, 2021), and clarity required to transform the STEM research enterprise. Given the foundational nature of committee service to the STEM research enterprise, we believe that embracing this new framework holds great untapped potential.
In 2014, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) conducted the latest in its sequence of surveys of its membership. Included in the survey were a number of questions pertaining to the value that members derive from the Society’s products and services. Asked to classify the value of their AMS membership dues as “excellent,” “satisfactory,” or “not good value,” 93% chose at least “satisfactory,” including 36% who selected “excellent.” The three most frequently cited reasons for joining the AMS were attendance at meetings, access to publications, and staying informed. Consistent with these reasons, AMS-sponsored scientific conferences, AMS journals, and BAMS were found to be at least somewhat valuable to more than 90% of survey participants. Those who expressed some level of dissatisfaction cited as reasons the cost of membership dues, travel and registration costs associated with AMS conferences, or a feeling of not being included in the Society. These findings may be pertinent to the Society’s long-term planning for its offering of products and services.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.