Rethinking Committee Work in the Research Enterprise: The Case of Regenerative Gatekeeping

Abstract

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.

Space physics guide to STRIDE: Strategies and tactics for recruiting to improve diversity and excellence

“…Beyond our immediate research cohort, others have also been striving for a more equitable space physics research community. Lewis et al (2022) encourages Earth and space scientists to embrace committee work as an opportunity for "regenerative gatekeeping," using the service role as a chance to implement policy change within your institution or society. Hamden et al (2022) describe the intent and format of the NASA PI Launchpad Workshop, a program designed to increase the diversity of leaders ready to propose a spaceflight mission concept to NASA's Science Mission Directorate.…”

Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin Volume 32 Number 2 May 2023 41‐87

“…With no measurable increase in earth and ocean doctorates awarded to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) (Bernard and Cooperdock 2018) and consistently lower National Science Foundation funding for most non-White principal investigators, academic and research organizations are reckoning with their role in perpetuating systemic barriers and compounding harm for individuals belonging to intersecting underrepresented groups (Steinpreis et al 1999;Ginther et al 2011;Maltese and Tai 2011;Chang et al 2014;Taylor 2014;Garza 2016;Laurison and Friedman 2016;Bingham et al 2018). In this period of reckoning, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are revealing the responsibilities institutions need to assume in shaping an inclusive and equitable geoscience community (Ali et al 2021;Behl et al 2021;Acosta et al 2022;Lewis et al 2022).…”