"Maybe this is just not the place for me:" Gender harassment and discrimination in the geosciences

Abstract

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.

Equity, community, and accountability: Leveraging a department-level climate survey as a tool for action

“…A lack of significant differences across employment categories in several general questions may have resulted from experiences of climate being influenced more by social identities (e.g., gender, race) than employment category. For instance, gender-based harassment and discrimination may play a larger role in individual experiences of climate, irrespective of employment category [ 12 ]. Unfortunately, having fewer participants in department-specific surveys (versus campus-wide) limits the statistical power necessary to evaluate differences in climate experience across social identities (e.g., race, religion, disability status).…”

Acknowledging the Intersectionality of Geoscientists With Disabilities to Enhance Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

“…The recruitment and retention of students and geoscientists from historically underrepresented groups relies on the understanding of how geoscience disciplinary culture positively or negatively impacts the intersection of marginalized identities (Crenshaw, 1989;Gillborn, 2016;Mattheis et al, 2019;Núñez et al, 2020). Intersectional research in the discipline consists of, but is not limited to, the highlighting of the history of diversity across the geosciences (Mattheis et al, 2019), the creation of a geoscience-specific model of intersectionality (Núñez et al, 2020), the application of intersectional frameworks to address discrimination and harassment (Mattheis et al, 2022), and the push towards the creation of stronger, more inclusive and accessible identity-based communities within the discipline (Ulrich, 2021). The goal of these efforts will help to understand how identity-related experiences impact student retention and the overall DEIA efforts in the geosciences.…”

“…When assessing the root-causes of underrepresentation, we must first consider the extent to which the various geoscience disciplines were founded upon, and/or continue to exhibit aspects of colonialism (Schär, 2015;Monarrez et al, 2021;Scarlett, 2022) sexism (Stafford, 1988;Simarski, 1992;St. John et al, 2016;Secord, 2018;Yusoff, 2018;Bocher et al, 2020;Sexton et al, 2020;Mattheis et al, 2022), ableism (Lawrence and Dowey, 2021), and racism (Berhe and Ghezzehei, 2020;Dutt, 2020;Dutt, 2021;Monarrez et al, 2021;Morris, 2021) and continue to pervade and potentially oppress geoscience identity to this day (Wadman, 2017;Núñez et al, 2020;Cartier, 2021;Mervis, 2022;Prillaman, 2022). To improve resources for recruitment and retention of underrepresented scholars, the geosciences must further explore identity and its impacts within the discipline.…”

Interpretive field geomorphology as cognitive, social, embodied and affective epistemic practice

“…Skill development is also shaped by the range of geomorphological and social‐geomorphological experiences (the range of landscapes interpreted, and who they are interpreted with). It is well recognized that structural inequalities in access to the discipline exist (Dowey et al, 2021; Mattheis et al, 2022; McAllister et al, 2022; Núñez et al, 2019), but differential social and economic capital (both individual and institutional) to access diverse field experiences may further reinforce such inequalities.…”