Gender and Arctic climate change science in Canada

Abstract

There is growing recognition that gender diversity within research organizations can result in innovative research outcomes. It has also been recognized that gender homogeneity can undermine the quality and breadth of the research and may allow some to cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientific findings. In this paper, we present the results of a gender-based analysis of Canada's ArcticNet Networks Centers of Excellence. Representing Canada's single largest commitment to climate change science, ArcticNet has involved 761 researchers who have published >2400 peer-reviewed publications on the impacts of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Our results indicate that, despite outnumbering their male peers at the graduate levels, the representation of women within ArcticNet exhibits a marked decline to only 21% (N = 51) of all ArcticNet investigators (N = 246). In addition to being numerically under-represented, female investigators in ArcticNet have fewer research collaborators and are generally less integrated into the network as compared to their male colleagues. Male investigators tend to form homophilious ties-publishing predominately with other males, whereas female investigators have heterophilious collaborations, with fewer peer-reviewed journal articles. Given the complexities of climate change research, particularly in the Arctic where the impacts of climate change are projected to be most extreme, the equitable inclusion of female scientists and other under-represented groups is crucial if sustainable solutions are to be found.

Gendered work in geoscience: Hard work in a masculine field

“…Natchers' et al. (2020) analysis of research networks and collaboration concludes that male researchers form homophilous ties and build extensive (male) networks, publishing predominantly with other males. In contrast, female researchers are more likely to form heterophilic research collaborations and to publish fewer peer‐reviewed journal articles.…”

“…On the one hand, these empirical data include descriptions of the geosciences as a field where cultural and structural factors are constructed according to specific masculine ideals and values that effectively position women professionals as deviant and different. Reflecting extant findings in the field, various occasions were described where women geoscientists had been subjected to gender bias, gendered career pathways, and gendered organizational hierarchies and working conditions, exposing them to hostile environments (Heilman, 2001; Marín‐Spiotta et al., 2020; Natcher, Maria Bogdan, Lieverse & Spiers, 2020). On the other hand, the main narratives among our respondents did not seem to concern misogyny but rather hard work and working hard, furthering of the understanding of how gender‐neutral narratives are understood in masculine organizations (Acker, 2006; Johansson, 2020; Korvajärvi, 2011).…”

Networks for Science-Informed Innovation in the Arctic: Insights on the Structure and Evolution of a Canadian Research Network

“…These efforts have not paid close attention to how diverse actors might interact within broader networks; although Arctic science approaches often promote concepts and language around networks, there has been limited application of methods of analysis at the network level (Kofinas et al, 2020). While there has been a recent examination of coauthorship patterns among Arctic researchers (Natcher et al, 2020), there has yet to be a broader structural analysis on the organization and evolution of networked Arctic scientific research that also includes non-academic actors (Pigford et al, 2017). This paper aims to understand how Arctic research networks are organized, evolve, and span disciplinary, organizational, and geographic boundaries in support of science-informed innovation by examining ArcticNet using social network analysis techniques.…”

“…The association between PL and academic institutions was expected given that at least one project leader per project was required to have a university affiliation as per the rules outlined by the NCE program. An analysis of gender diversity among ArcticNet's academic leadership is elaborated on elsewhere (Natcher et al, 2020). Node-level analysis suggests that PL were much more central to the network than non-project leaders (average normalized degree project lead/non-leader: Complete network, 0.06/0.02; Phase 1, 0.10/0.07; Phase 2, 0.09/0.05; Phase 3, 0.08/0.05; Phase 4, 0.07/0.04).…”

“…The increasing participation by local actors in ArcticNet suggests that future policies could focus on ways to better support the engagement of local innovation actors at the network's core (Oksanen and Hautamäki, 2015). Since the level of actor diversity can influence regional innovation outcomes (Tödtling and Trippl, 2005;Isaksen and Trippl, 2017), efforts to promote more diverse network leadership might also be beneficial, especially given the identified low gender diversity among Arctic academics (Natcher et al, 2020). Thus, it will be important to monitor the outcomes of recent efforts being made by networks like ArcticNet to improve equity, diversity and inclusion among its network members (ArcticNet, 2021).…”