Little is known about the climate of the scientific fieldwork setting as it relates to gendered experiences, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. We conducted an internet-based survey of field scientists (N = 666) to characterize these experiences. Codes of conduct and sexual harassment policies were not regularly encountered by respondents, while harassment and assault were commonly experienced by respondents during trainee career stages. Women trainees were the primary targets; their perpetrators were predominantly senior to them professionally within the research team. Male trainees were more often targeted by their peers at the research site. Few respondents were aware of mechanisms to report incidents; most who did report were unsatisfied with the outcome. These findings suggest that policies emphasizing safety, inclusivity, and collegiality have the potential to improve field experiences of a diversity of researchers, especially during early career stages. These include better awareness of mechanisms for direct and oblique reporting of harassment and assault and, the implementation of productive response mechanisms when such behaviors are reported. Principal investigators are particularly well positioned to influence workplace culture at their field sites.

Numerous studies use quantitative measures to evaluate retention, advancement, and success in academic settings. Such approaches, however, present challenges for evaluating the lived experiences of academics.Here, we present a qualitative thematic analysis of self-reports of positive and negative experiences that occurred while conducting academic field research. Twenty-six semistructured interviews highlighted two central themes:(1) variability in clarity of appropriate professional behavior and rules at fieldsites, and (2) access, or obstacles therein, to professional resources and opportunity. In some instances, respondent narratives recalled a lack of consequences for violations of rules governing appropriate conduct. These violations included harassment and assault, and ultimately disruptions to career trajectories. A heuristic construct of a traffic light describing Red, Yellow, and Green experiences illustrates the ramifications of this distribution of clarity and access within fieldsite contexts. These results extend the findings from our previously reported Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE) about the climates and contexts created and experienced in field research settings. Moreover, this study addresses specific tactics, such as policies, procedures, and paradigms that fieldsite directors and principal investigators can implement to improve field experiences and better achieve equal opportunity in field research settings. [work environment, gender, field experiences, harassment] RESUMEN Numerosos estudios usan medidas cuantitativas para evaluar la retención, el ascenso y eléxito eń ambitos académicos. Tales aproximaciones, sin embargo, presentan retos para evaluar las experiencias vividas por los académicos. Aquí presentamos un análisis temático cualitativo de los autoreportes de experiencias positivas y negativas que ocurrieron mientras conducían investigación de campo académica. Veintiséis entrevistas semiestructuradas destacaron dos temas centrales: (1) variabilidad en la claridad de la conducta profesional apropiada y las reglas de los sitios de campo, y (2) acceso, u obstáculos enél, a la oportunidad y los recursos profesionales. En algunas instancias, las narrativas de los respondedores recordaron una falta de consecuencias por las violaciones a las reglas que rigen la conducta apropiada. Estas violaciones incluyeron acoso y asalto, y finalmente disrupciones en las trayectorias de sus carreras. Un constructo heurístico de un semáforo que describe las experiencias de Rojo, Amarillo, y Verde ilustra las ramificaciones de esta distribución de claridad y acceso dentro de los contextos de los sitios de campo. Estos resultados extienden los hallazgos de nuestra Encuesta de las Experiencias de Campo Académicas (SAFE) previamente reportada acerca de los climas y contextos creados y experimentados en entornos de investigación de campo. Adicionalmente, este estudio aborda tácticas específicas, tales como políticas, procedimientos y paradigmas que los directores de sitios de campo e investigado...

The intensifying pace of research based on cross-cultural studies in the social sciences necessitates a discussion of the unique challenges of multi-sited research. Given an increasing demand for social scientists to expand their data collection beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations, there is an urgent need for transdisciplinary conversations on the logistical, scientific and ethical considerations inherent to this type of scholarship. As a group of social scientists engaged in cross-cultural research in psychology and anthropology, we hope to guide prospective cross-cultural researchers through some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges involved in such work: (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods. We aim to shed light on some of the difficult ethical quandaries of this type of research. Our recommendation emphasizes a community-centred approach, in which the desires of the community regarding research approach and methodology, community involvement, results communication and distribution, and data sharing are held in the highest regard by the researchers. We argue that such considerations are central to scientific rigour and the foundation of the study of human behaviour.

No abstract

Few psychometrically valid scales exist to assess family outcomes and the helpfulness of early intervention. This article describes the development and psychometric properties of the Family Outcomes Survey—Revised. The revision was prompted by the need to (a) create a new format that would be easier for parents to understand, (b) revise and expand the survey items to provide more information for states to use in planning for program improvement, and (c) demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties. Input from stakeholders and experts was used to identify concepts and develop candidate items. Data from a web-based survey conducted with 265 families in Illinois and Texas were used to assess the psychometric properties of candidate items. These activities produced a revised survey with sound psychometric integrity that can be used to document family outcomes and identify areas for program improvement.