The Environment of Gender and Science: Status and Perspectives of Women and Men in Physical Geography

Abstract

In 1995 and 1996 we undertook surveys to identify the status, perspectives, and contributions of women and men in physical geography and geosciences/geology, and to study the evolution of our fields. This paper presents the results of the physical geography survey, and considers the following questions: How have academic men and women physical geographers' professional development experiences differed? Do men and women in physical geography emphasize different research areas? Do their research methods differ from one another? Gender differences were identified most strikingly in rank and tenure status, research topics and methodologies, and professional satisfaction. Generational differences by academic rank were identified in professional satisfaction and in pull factors. Minor gender differences were found in dual career couple status, but this status had major effects on career choices and opportunities for both men and women. This paper is part of our larger project aimed at comparing and contrasting geoscience/geology and physical geography, and at including the earth sciences in gender and science studies that have long focused on mathematics, chemistry, biology, and physics.

Diversity in geoscience: Participation, behaviour, and the division of scientific labour at a Canadian geoscience conference

“…Although geoscience methods and contributions are changing with the introduction of new modelling and quantitative techniques, fieldwork and instrumental campaigns remain mainstays of geoscience research (see also Luzzadder-Beach and Macfarlane 2000). The popularity of geoscience methods and contribution types across different demographics suggests that seeking demographic diversity can foster increased intellectual diversity within geoscience conferences.…”

“…However, although difference should be celebrated, previous research has highlighted that this can result in some researchers being excluded from particular fields. For example, women are reported as under-rating their own King et al performance in mathematics due to learned biases (Skibba 2016), feeling alienated from computer sciences due to an increasingly masculine culture (Cheryan et al 2017), and lacking access to laboratories due to funding (Luzzadder-Beach and Macfarlane 2000). By analysing how intellectual diversity relates to demographic diversity, we can identify whether different social groups tend to make different types of scientific contributions, use different methods, and connect their work to society in different ways.…”

‘Muddy glee’: rounding out the picture of women and physical geography fieldwork

“…Not to do so reinscribes the notion that this is ‘men's stuff’. In their survey of women in physical geography in the USA, Luzzader‐Beach and MacFarlane (2000) found that the women in their sample recorded spending slightly more time in the field than their male peers (32% as opposed to 30%), and felt comfortable doing so. A more important site of struggle appears to be access to laboratory time and resources – a major conclusion of the paper.…”

“…In this brief commentary, we do not focus on numbers of women in human and physical geography (see Zelinsky 1973; McDowell and Peake 1990; McKendrick 1996; Luzzader‐Beach and MacFarlane 1996 2000; Dumayne‐Peaty and Wellens 1998; Winkler 2000; Crang 2003) or on gender and the scientific epistemology of physical geography (see Keller 1985; Harding 1986; McEwan 1998; Madge and Bee 1999). Rather, we are concerned with the embodied experiences of fieldwork and data collection.…”

“…Gender is a significant theme within much of this literature (e.g. Sparke 1996; Luzzader‐Beach and MacFarlane 1996 2000), with class, age, ethnicity, disability and sexuality also at issue (e.g. Kobayashi 1994; England 1994; Valentine 1997; Hall et al 2002; Cupples 2002).…”