Signaling Safety: Characterizing Fieldwork Experiences and Their Implications for Career Trajectories

Abstract

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...

Family and the field: Expectations of a field-based research career affect researcher family planning decisions

“…These inequities apply as much to fieldwork as to campus life. Recently, two SAFE (Survey of Academic Field Experiences) studies within anthropology documented a high level of sexual harassment in field settings [6,49], a finding that has been replicated in other sciences [5]. These lines of investigation also highlight the lack of awareness among those with privilege that their tolerance of structural impediments imposes silence on those with less power [49].…”

“…Recently, two SAFE (Survey of Academic Field Experiences) studies within anthropology documented a high level of sexual harassment in field settings [6,49], a finding that has been replicated in other sciences [5]. These lines of investigation also highlight the lack of awareness among those with privilege that their tolerance of structural impediments imposes silence on those with less power [49]. In all these studies of discrimination and harassment, respondents felt that speaking out would jeopardize their careers in ways white men rarely experience [5,6,49,50].…”

“…These lines of investigation also highlight the lack of awareness among those with privilege that their tolerance of structural impediments imposes silence on those with less power [49]. In all these studies of discrimination and harassment, respondents felt that speaking out would jeopardize their careers in ways white men rarely experience [5,6,49,50]. …”

Harassment, a field study

“…When these acts occurred, the victims were more likely to be women, and either junior colleagues or students. The impact of these attacks may be long-lasting: Kathryn Clancy and co-authors posited that the strain and stress of experiencing harassment and assault may contribute to the 'leaky pipeline' phenomenon 1 , that is, the gradual loss of women from science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields; their 2017 follow-up study 2 confirmed this perception among victims of historic harassment.…”

“…The 2017 study highlights the difficulty of establishing acceptable behavioural norms in the absence of explicit and enforced policy, as well as the overwhelming importance of such policies in fieldwork contexts: where codes of conduct and expectations were not clearly established, understood and enforced, there was a correlation with higher rates of sexual harassment 2 . It seems probable, although not tested in that particular study, that a correlation would exist with other forms of bullying and abuse as well.…”