Broadening inclusivity at sea

Abstract

Ocean sciences in the U.S. remains a field with one of the lowest rates of diversity, having disproportionately low representation from marginalized groups, including Black, Asian, LatinX, Indigenous, and other people of color; LGBTQIA+ individuals; disabled persons; women; those with neurological differences; and those from low-income groups. With equity and inclusion in mind, recent efforts have been made to increase the number of ocean science professionals from marginalized groups through multiple entry points, including internships. However, there still exists a large gap between the diversity found in the general population and the diversity within ocean sciences. Perhaps one reason why this field continues to have lower diversity owes to the unique component of many oceanographic careers, which continues to present an especially high barrier for marginalized groups: participating in sea-going research expeditions. Herein, we have synthesized possible ways to prioritize the physical and emotional safety of marginalized ocean science professionals participating in a research expedition, including guidance on preparation, implementation, and providing support post-cruise. These suggestions are intended to be useful for the broader oceanographic research community to consider the safety and well-being of individuals from marginalized groups at sea, since the field of ocean sciences - like all fields - would greatly benefit from increased representation and diversity.

Importance of research expeditions in oceanographic career development

Careers in the ocean sciences can span a variety of focus areas, from scientific research to national security, the energy sector, supply chains, food availability, and much more. These careers are generally well-paid, and the sector is expected to grow in the US by 7% between 2020-2030 as more and more focus turns to the growing Blue Economy (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). One component of many ocean science careers that differs from most other science disciplines is the necessity of sea-going expeditions - field campaigns that are frequently set on isolated vessels, far from shore. While research expeditions are often described as exciting and rewarding (e.g., LaCapra, 2018; Windom, 2019; Theising, 2021), they can also be a time of unexpected challenges, isolation, and - unfortunately - harassment and/or abuse (Harris, 2022). For those who are about to undertake their first oceanographic expedition, some resources are available to assist with personal preparation (e.g., Glessmer, 2019); however, most of these resources do not specifically address the additional struggles faced by sea-going individuals from marginalized backgrounds aboard research vessels (Ackerman et al., 2023). For the purposes of this manuscript, we are referring to ocean science professionals generally to mean those who are working at sea but who are not necessarily professional mariners nor PhD-level researchers, including hydrographers, marine biologists, marine geologists, physical oceanographers, vehicle and systems engineers, marine technicians, sea-going data scientists, and more. Our authorship represents multiple perspectives though all are currently working in the U.S., so our recommendations are likely most suitable for U.S.-based activities. We focus our guidance on research expeditions, much of which should apply across ocean domains and sectors, but note that some seagoing work (e.g., ocean shipping, offshore energy) may differ significantly.

Many efforts to diversify the ocean science field include sending students and early-career professionals to sea as part of research expeditions (e.g., Ocean Exploration Cooperative Institute (OECI), 2023; American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2023; NSF’s STEMSEAS program; Ocean Exploration Trust’s ONR-funded internship program). In fact, going to sea is largely considered a critical component of many ocean science careers (e.g., EnvironmentalSciences.org, 2023), with career planning information suggesting field experiences for individuals could start as early as high school (American Geosciences Institute (AGI), 2023). Broadly, undergraduate participation in fieldwork has been shown to lead to greater STEM retention and graduation rates (Beltran et al., 2020), improved understanding of theory, and acquisition of hands-on experience for future career positions (Roberts, 2020). Importantly, in one survey of students participating in a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program as part of a collaboration between Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and marine laboratories, at-sea research experience of all professional development experiences in the program, was determined to be the most important contributor to personal and professional growth (Gilligan et al., 2007). Positive experiences in the field can lead students to pursue a major or career in a related STEM field (Stokes et al., 2015; Cook et al., 2016), while negative experiences, including experiences related to racial bias, drove students away from further STEM fieldwork and careers (Park et al., 2020). Thus, the efforts to diversify the marine sciences should carefully consider factors of inclusion specifically related to experiences at sea.

Demographics of ocean science professionals

Ocean sciences suffer from a lack of diversity (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). Researchers from minoritized communities - BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color), as well as other protected classes on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, national origin, and other factors such as socioeconomic status - have been historically excluded and continue to be marginalized in these fields (e.g., Valenzuela-Toro and Viglino, 2021; Chen et al., 2022). The history of gender disparity in ocean sciences has been discussed previously, in part due to the fact that women were largely excluded from at-sea research expeditions until the second half of the twentieth century (Day, 1999; Thompson et al., 2011; Duncombe, 2019; Hendry et al., 2020; Legg et al., 2022). This exclusion has in part led to a lack of female representation in marine scientist positions (Kappel, 2014), geoscience faculty positions (Ranganathan et al., 2021), and senior leadership positions in marine science and conservation (Giakoumi et al., 2021). There is also a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the ocean sciences (Roberts, 2020) at both the student and faculty level (Cook et al., 2016), particularly for women of color (Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018). These researchers often experience persistent systemic and individual bias, microaggressions, and/or exclusion (Marin-Spiotta et al., 2020; Morris, 2021; Marin-Spiotta et al., 2023), in part resulting in a “hostile obstacle course” that decreases retention throughout the ranks and by career stage (Berhe et al., 2022). These are just two examples - sexism and racism - of the many “-isms’’ that exist in this and many other homogeneous fields.

Efforts to diversify

In recent years, there have been numerous efforts and discussions related to promotion of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in STEM, including in the geosciences, oceanography, and other field sciences (e.g., Cooper & Lewis, 2017; Greene et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2021; Barabino et al., 2023). This includes discussion regarding the general workforce (Johnson et al., 2016), federal workforce (National Science and Technology Council, 2021), academic faculty (Ormand et al., 2021), federal research funding (Chen et al., 2022), conference speaking opportunities (Ford et al., 2018), and student opportunities (Karsten, 2019; Garza, 2021), as well as discussions on promoting safety and inclusion at institutional and program levels (Kelly and Yarincik, 2021; Ali et al., 2021). While some gains have been made in increasing the number of early career oceanographers from marginalized backgrounds, many efforts to diversify and recruit students in the ocean sciences continue to have problems with retention (Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; Behl et al., 2021). In part, retention issues are linked to the lack of representation in faculty and leadership positions, positions of authority, which can have ripple effects on recruitment and retention of the future blue economy workforce. Mentorship from those with similar lived experiences and backgrounds (Hernandez et al., 2020; Olcott and Downen, 2020; Behl et al., 2021, Orcutt and Cetinić, 2014, Coles et al., 2011; Lozier, 2015; Aikens et al., 2017) is particularly important for students and early career researchers from minoritized backgrounds in cultivating self-efficacy and building a professional support network.

Obstacles/limitations preventing early career professionals from going on expeditions

A myriad of barriers may prevent ocean science professionals at all career stages from participating in at-sea research expeditions, including; historical exclusionary factors, lack of representation, lack of appropriate accommodations, and potentially hostile work environments, which can all contribute to hesitancy and feeling unsafe at the prospect of going to sea. One barrier that was frequently discussed during the writing of this manuscript is the personal financial costs associated with going to sea (Giles et al., 2020; Roberts, 2020). It was noted that personal protective equipment and specialty clothing is sometimes not supported by funding, leaving especially early career oceanographers with financial hardship. Additionally, some programs that do provide funding for equipment, travel, supplies or materials, or other necessary items, do so through reimbursements, which may take long periods of time to process, creating a situation unfeasible for many students, especially those from economically depressed communities. Another example of this is the potential for high cost medications, which can be excluded by insurance companies if they are requested for longer periods of time, which might be required for longer cruises. Finally, the prospect of being away from home for a longer period can also create financial and logistical hardships, especially for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, for paying bills at home, pets, dependent care, and more.

Additionally, lack of accommodations for researchers with disabilities (Gilley et al., 2015; Bower, 2018; Giles et al., 2020) as well as the historical portrayal of oceanographers as able-bodied (Garza, 2021) can prevent those with disabilities and other health issues from going to sea. Researchers with disabilities also face additional obstacles and barriers during fieldwork at sea, including that many research vessels are not accessible for wheelchairs or other required support (Hall and Healey, 2005). The current lack of representation of ocean science professionals with disabilities is likely directly tied to the lack of accessibility on research vessels in addition to other systemic barriers. Other situations which may preclude researchers from going to sea include those with caretaker responsibilities or religious commitments, who cannot be away for weeks or months at a time. Over the last decade, efforts to incorporate and improve telepresence operations that enable scientists on shore to participate in cruises in-real-time from their home or office have increased participation of those who are not able to sail on the cruise, including if they are pregnant, wheelchair-bound, or unwell (Marlow et al., 2017; Gallaudet et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2022).

Furthermore, sea-going research expeditions can take an emotional toll and present new situations and customs, long hours, isolation from support systems, concentrated time with small groups of people, distance away from medical attention, and the prospect of being far from shore or getting seasick. These situations can create and exacerbate feelings of anxiety (Tucker and Horton, 2018; Lawrence and Dowey, 2021). Sea-going expeditions can also involve travel to new and foreign places depending on the port of call, many of which will have different laws, rules, and customs. For the large number of STEM students and researchers in the US who are not U.S. citizens but wish to go to sea, they may need to go through extra security checks and medical screening. These procedures not only ‘other’ them in the process and restrict their expedition opportunities, but also subject them to additional stressors. In a survey of LGBTQ+ geoscientists by Olcott and Downen (2020), over half of respondents also indicated that they have felt unsafe in a field work location due to their gender identity or expression. Additionally, isolated, hierarchical groups and power dynamics at sea can embolden harassment, particularly sexual harassment (Clancy et al., 2014) and racial harassment (Dowey et al., 2021).

Current efforts to promote safety and belonging at sea/in the field

Many sea-going expeditions now require participants to watch orientation videos and/or undergo harassment training prior to setting foot on the ship. UNOLS (University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System), an organization that coordinates U.S. research vessels, provides resources for harassment, reporting, and field safety. Congress has passed existing law (PL114-328 Subtitle C), and introduced current bills (e.g. H.R. 2865) requiring the establishment and/or strengthening of sexual harassment and assault prevention and response within NOAA and other maritime groups (e.g. MARAD, US Merchant Marine Academy). Other organizations have been founded as a response to the rampant harassment associated with field work (e.g., The Fieldwork Initiative) and a community-derived approach to preventing sexual harassment at sea has been proposed (Ackerman et al., 2023). However, there is still a need for large scale improvement in programs and systems with regard to safety and inclusion for at-sea researchers, particularly as more programs recruit students and researchers from marginalized backgrounds for programs that include sea going experiences (Amon et al., 2022).

Opportunities for improvements to benefit marginalized oceanographers

The premise of this publication initially arose from a personal conversation between colleagues seeking to provide helpful advice to an early career researcher who was heading out on their first oceanographic expedition. Subsequently, a collection of resources was gathered to share with that researcher to help them prepare for the expedition, including important things to know and pack. Conversations were then held between the coauthors to centralize these resources for onward cruise participants, with a focus on how ocean science professionals can better create a culture of inclusivity while at sea. A decision was then made that we should gather helpful information from as many ocean science professionals as we can, in order to make a list of considerations that can be used widely in support of diversifying the ocean science community. Onward informal discussions were then held with colleagues from a variety of backgrounds in order to centralize their recommendations herein. While attempts were made to gather experiences and information from ocean science professionals from diverse backgrounds with diverse experiences, certainly many unique perspectives may not have been included below, since the whole community of ocean science professionals was not officially surveyed.

Below, we list some considerations for improving safety and inclusion on at-sea expeditions, broken down into time periods of: 1) before the expedition, 2) during the expedition, and 3) after the expedition. This list has been compiled by the authors, many of whom have minoritized identities, from the literature, from speaking with our broad networks, gathering feedback on earlier iterations of the below list of suggestions at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana in December 2021, and at the virtual Ocean Sciences Meeting in February, 2022. Our target audience encompasses expedition planners, program managers, principal investigators, vessel operators, funding agencies, and anyone who will be planning expeditions and bringing on researchers from marginalized backgrounds. This resource may also be useful for anyone participating in at-sea research expeditions to consider, particularly for individuals going to sea for the first time, as many may be overwhelmed and may not know what questions to ask nor which measures to consider. Ultimately, the onus should be upon the programs and leaders sending researchers to sea to ensure safety and inclusion for all participants.

This manuscript serves as a useful resource for expedition planners to review and consider, while acknowledging that it may not be feasible to implement all recommendations simultaneously. We also acknowledge that this list is not all encompassing, and we will inevitably miss important topics and suggestions for consideration. Though many of these recommendations can be broken up chronologically throughout the at-sea expedition experience, many changes can be incorporated throughout the expedition process and at all times. Additionally, while this paper highlights specific diversity needs and challenges of scientists going to sea, it is acknowledged that ocean-based careers extend beyond only scientists including artists, culinary experts, firefighters, rope handlers, boat operators, etc. Lastly, we hope that this resource initiates future conversations about ways to further improve safety and inclusion at sea, fully inclusive of all identities.

Based on the information that we have gathered and experienced, we propose a lengthy list of considerations and recommendations for institutions and individuals to strongly consider actioning in order to ensure the emotional and physical safety of participants both prior to an expedition (Table 1) and during an expedition (Table 2). However, we additionally recommend that a range of actions would also be strongly beneficial to the entire community following an expedition, including;

• Request feedback from all participants relevant to personal safety and comfort, and use this feedback to address needs prior to the next expedition.

• Continue mentor relationships and peer-mentor circles after the expedition.

• Provide support forward – guidance for early career participants on how to add at-sea experience to their resume/CV, LinkedIn, and job interviews.

• Ensure resulting abstracts and publications include an inclusive authorship that appropriately reflects contributions to the research.

• Provide funds to register for, travel to, and participate in major conferences.

• Allow team members to control what information is publicly shared. For example, many cruises feature participant websites including photos and descriptions which remain online indefinitely after the cruise. If a participant chooses to transition gender, presentation, change pronouns, names, etc., an outdated website could create an uncomfortable reference to a past presentation that an individual may be uncomfortable having online and searchable, and they could be hesitant to undertake the process of trying to get it removed or changed. Making these sorts of pages easy for participants to update, having a set expiration, or having a longer term “opt-in” could alleviate this concern.

Summary

Much of the research regarding demographics in the ocean sciences, particularly at the faculty level, are broken down by gender and are not further disaggregated by racial or ethnic identity. Even so, these data follow the gender binary, and many surveys do not include information on LGBTQ+ scientists (Olcott and Downen, 2020). More research is needed to understand the demographics of ocean science professionals at all levels, sectors, and needs. Programs need to acknowledge that much more work is needed to address issues of racism, sexism, ableism, safety, and belonging in the field (Dutt, 2019; García-Gonzales et al., 2019; Marin-Spiotta et al., 2020), and work towards diversity, equity, inclusion and justice, not just to “check a box”. Furthermore, research programs and researchers need to confront and address the phenomenon of “parachute science” (Stefanoudis et al., 2021), and work in partnership with and with full inclusion and participation of members of Indigenous communities when conducting geographically or culturally relevant research (Ali et al., 2021). At all times, geoscience professionals, researchers, and students should raise the visibility of past and present ocean researchers from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives (Núñez et al., 2019; Olcott and Downen, 2020). Additionally, conversations regarding both visible and invisible disabilities should be initiated and sustained to bring the topic of accessibility in at-sea research expeditions to the forefront. This representation is needed for students and early career researchers to see themselves in this field. Throughout all this, there will need to be buy-in at all levels - from leadership, to chief scientists, to expedition coordinators, funding agencies, and those in positions of authority.

These recommendations, which are certainly not all encompassing, serve as a catalyst for onward conversations, and that further recommendations can be employed continually to ensure that oceanographers from minoritized groups are not pushed out of oceanography careers due to negative experiences at sea. Every person and every situation is unique. Only once our community fully embraces the breadth of cultures and experiences of all potential oceanographers can our field really be inclusive and exceptional. Additionally, while this manuscript relates to ship-based missions, many of the recommendations above could also apply for long-term, shore-based scientific missions including; travel to remote locations, shared living quarters, and back-to-back day-long cruises, all of which can yield harmful work environments, especially for people from minoritized groups (e.g., Langin, 2022; Woolston, 2022).

References

• 1

  Ackerman A. Yarincik K. Murphy S. Cetinić I. Fundis A. Miller A. et al . (2023). Know before you go: A community-derived approach to planning for and preventing sexual harassment at oceanographic field sites. Oceanography36, 38–43. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Aikens M. L. Robertson M. M. Sadselia S. Watkins K. Evans M. Runyon C. R. et al . (2017). Race and gender differences in undergraduate research mentoring structures and research outcomes. CBE—Life Sci. Educ.16, ar34. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-07-0211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Ali H. N. Sheffield S. L. Bauer J. E. Caballero-Gill R. P. Gasparini N. M. Libarkin J. et al . (2021). An actionable anti-racism plan for geoscience organizations. Nat. Commun.12, 3794. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23936-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  American Geophysical Union (AGU) (2023) Bridge program. Available online at: https://www.agu.org/bridge-program (Accessed 2/21/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  American Geosciences Institute (AGI) (2023) Oceanographer. Available online at: https://www.americangeosciences.org/education/k5geosource/careers/oceanographer (Accessed 2/21/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Amon D. J. Filander Z. Harris L. Harden-Davies H. (2022). Safe working environments are key to improving inclusion in open-ocean, deep-ocean, and high-seas science. Mar. Policy137, 104947. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Anadu J. Ali H. Jackson C. (2020). Ten steps to protect BIPOC scholars in the field. EOS.101. doi: 10.1029/2020EO150525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Barabino G. A. Fiske S. T. Scherer L. A. Vargas E. A. (2023). Advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations: beyond broadening participation (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press). National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. doi: 10.17226/26803

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Behl M. Cooper S. Garza C. Kolesar S. E. Legg S. Lewis J. C. et al . (2021). Changing the culture of coastal, ocean, and marine sciences: strategies for individual and collective actions. Oceanography34 (3), 53–60. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2021.307

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Beltran R. S. Marnocha E. Race A. Croll D. A. Dayton G. H. Zavaleta E. S. (2020). Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology. Ecol. Evol.10, 5184–5196. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6300

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Berhe A. A. Barnes R. T. Hastings M. G. Mattheis A. Schneider B. Williams B. M. et al . (2022). Scientists from historically excluded groups face a hostile obstacle course. Nat. Geosci.15.1, 2–4. doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00868-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Bernard R. E. Cooperdock E. H. G. (2018). No progress on diversity in 40 years. Nat. Geosci.11, 292–295. doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Bower A. (2018) After 40 years of Going to Sea… a ‘First’ for Me on this Cruise (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution OceanInsight). Available online at: https://web.whoi.edu/oceaninsight/after-40-years-going-to-sea-a-first-for-me-on-this-cruise/ (Accessed 2/21/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) U.S. Department of labor, occupational outlook handbook, geoscientists. Available online at: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/geoscientists.htm.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Chen C. Y. Kahanamoku S. S. Tripati A. Alegado R. A. Morris V. R. Andrade K. et al . (2022). Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation. Elife11, e83071. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Clancy K. B. H. Nelson R. G. Rutherford J. N. Hinde K. (2014). Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): trainees report harassment and assault. PloS One9, e102172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102172

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Coles V. Gerber L. Legg S. Lozier S . (2011). Mentoring groups: A non-exit strategy for women in physical oceanography. Oceanography24, 17–21. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2011.43

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Cook S. B. Holloway A. Lettrich M. Yarincik K. (2016). The ocean science graduate education landscape: A 2015 perspective. Oceanography29, 16–21. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Cooper S. K. Lewis J. C. (2017). STEMSEAS: A vehicle for the US academic fleet to serve undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. Oceanography30, 146–148. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Day D. (1999). Overview of the history of women at Scripps Institution of oceanography (UCSD Women’s center panel). Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/85t1s746.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Dowey N. Barclay J. Fernando B. Giles S. Houghton J. Jackson C. et al . (2021). A UK perspective on tackling the geoscience racial diversity crisis in the Global North. Nat. Geosci.14, 256–259. doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00737-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Duncombe J. (2019). Women in oceanography still navigate rough seas. Eos100. doi: 10.1029/2019EO125909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Dutt K. (2019). Race and racism in the geosciences. Nat. Geosci.13, 2–3. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0519-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  EnvironmentalSciences.org What is an oceanographer. Available online at: https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/oceanographer (Accessed 2/21/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Fernando B. Antell G. (2020). Recommendations for improving racial equality, diversity, and inclusion in the department of earth sciences (Univ. of oxford).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Ford H. L. Brick C. Blaufuss K. Dekens P. S. (2018). Gender inequity in speaking opportunities at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. Nat. Commun.9, 1358. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03809-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Forrester N. (2021). Reconsidering the role of alcohol in the scientific workplace. Nature600, S86–S88. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-03773-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Gallaudet T. Sims J. Lobecker E. Netburn A. Alexander C. Goodwin K. D. et al . (2020). Autonomy, artificial intelligence, and telepresence: Advancing ocean science at sea in the COVID-19 era. J. Ocean Technol.15, 1–13.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  García-González J. Forcén P. Jimenez-Sanchez M. (2019). Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PloS One14, e0225763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Garza C. (2021). Diversifying the ocean sciences: thoughts on the challenges ahead. Oceanography34, 184–185. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Giakoumi S. Pita C. Coll M. Fraschetti S. Gissi E. Katara I. et al . (2021). Persistent gender bias in marine science and conservation calls for action to achieve equity. Biol. Conserv.257, 109134. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Giles S. Jackson C. Stephen N. (2020). Barriers to fieldwork in undergraduate geoscience degrees. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.1, 77–78. doi: 10.1038/s43017-020-0022-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Gilley B. Atchison C. Feig A. Stokes A. (2015). Impact of inclusive field trips. Nat. Geosci.8, 579–580. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2500

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Gilligan M. R. Verity P.G. Cook C.B. Cook S.B. Booth M.G. Frischer M.E. (2007). Building a diverse and innovative ocean workforce through collaboration and partnerships that integrate research and education: HBCUs and marine laboratories. J. Geosci. Educ.55, 531–540. doi: 10.5408/1089-9995-55.6.531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Glessmer M. (2019). What to expect and how to behave on your first research cruise. Available at: https://elindarelius.no/2019/02/14/what-to-expect-and-how-to-behave-on-your-first-research-cruise/

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Greene S. Ashley K. Dunne E. Edgar K. Giles S. Hanson E. (2020). Toilet stops in the field: An educational primer and recommended best practices for field-based teaching. OSF Preprints. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/gnhj2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Greene S. E. Antell G. T. Atterby J. Bhatia R. Dunne E. M. Giles S. et al . (2021). Safety and belonging in the field: a checklist for educators. EarthArXiv. doi: 10.31223/x53p6h

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Guertin L. (2019). Want to be more inclusive? Stop making geology conferences about the beer (AGU Blogosphere). Available at: https://blogs.agu.org/geoedtrek/2019/12/08/inclusive-agu-conferences/.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Hall T. Healey M. (2005). Disabled students' experiences of fieldwork. Area37, 446–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00649.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Harris M. (2022). For an ill-fated science cruise, a sea of allegations (Undark). Available at: https://undark.org/2022/03/09/for-an-ill-fated-science-cruise-a-sea-of-allegations/.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Hendry K. R. Annett A. Bhatia R. Damerell Gillian M. Fielding S. Firing Y. et al . (2020). Equity at sea: Gender and inclusivity in UK sea-going science. Ocean Challenge24, 19–30.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Hernandez P. R. Adams A. S. Barnes R. T. Bloodhart B. Burt M. Clinton S. M. et al . (2020). Inspiration, inoculation, and introductions are all critical to successful mentorship for undergraduate women pursuing geoscience careers. Commun. Earth Environ.1, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s43247-020-0005-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Hill A. F. Jacquemart M. Gold A. U. Tiampo K . (2021). Changing the culture of fieldwork in the geosciences. Eos102. doi: 10.1029/2021EO158013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Jin L. Doser D. Lougheed V. Walsh E. J. Hamdan L. Zarei M. et al . (2019). Experiential learning and close mentoring improve recruitment and retention in the undergraduate environmental science program at an Hispanic-serving institution. J. Geosci. Educ.67, 384–399. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2019.1646072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Johnson A. Huggans M. J. Siegfried D. Braxton L. (2016). Strategies for increasing diversity in the ocean science workforce through mentoring. Oceanography29, 46–54. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2016.11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Kappel E. S. (2014). Women in oceanography. Oceanography27, 1–264. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Karsten J. L. (2019). Insights from the OEDG program on broadening participation in the geosciences. J. Geosci. Educ.67, 287–299. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2019.1565982

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Kelly A. Yarincik K. (2021). Report of the workshop to promote safety in field sciences. C. f. O. Leadership. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5604956

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LaCapra V. (2018). Students get their sea legs (Massachusetts, USA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution News). Available at: https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/whoi-students-get-their-sea-legs/.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Langin K. (2022). Sexual harassment plagues Antarctic research. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.ade7188

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Lawrence A. Dowey N. (2021). Six simple steps towards making GEES fieldwork more accessible and inclusive. Area. doi: doi.org/10.1111/area.12747

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Legg S. Wang C. Kappel E. Thompson L. (2022). Gender equity in oceanography. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. doi: 10.31223/X5PD3W

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Lozier M. S. (2015). A community effort toward the retention of women in physical oceanography. Oceanography18, 35–38. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Marin-Spiotta E. Barnes R.T. Berhe A.A. Hastings M.G. Mattheis A. Schneider B. et al . (2020). Hostile climates are barriers to diversifying the geosciences. Adv. Geosciences53, 117–127. doi: 10.5194/adgeo-53-117-2020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Marin-Spiotta E. Diaz-Vallejo E. J. Barnes R. T. Mattheis A. Schneider B. Berhe A. A. et al . (2023). Exclusionary behaviors reinforce historical biases and contribute to loss of talent in the earth sciences. Earth’s Future11, e2022ER002912. doi: 10.1029/2022EF002912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Marlow J. Borrelli C. Jungbluth S. P. (2017). Telepresence is a potentially transformative tool for field science. PNAS114, 4841–4844. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1703514114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Miller A. (2018). In some disciplines, heavy drinking is part of the culture. That can be a problem. Science. AAAS.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Morris V. R. (2021). Combating racism in the geosciences: reflections from a black professor. AGU Adv.2. doi: 10.1126/science.caredit.aaw3020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021 (Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation). Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd. Special Report NSF 21-321.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  National Geographic Society (2023) Grant budget guidelines. Available online at: https://natgeo.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#36000000paDj/a/3p000000SDWT/dn6DP5PF4EyHpDjJNp0HV3IMyG6zY3S07QKdRVJKtAs (Accessed 2/19/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  National Science and Technology Council (2021). Best practices for diversity and inclusion in STEM education and research: A guide by and for federal agencies, executive office of the president of the United States.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  National Science Foundation (2023) Frequently asked questions related to dependent care. Available online at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10032/nsf10032.jsp (Accessed 2/19/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Núñez A.-M. Rivera J. Hallmark T. (2019). Applying an intersectionality lens to expand equity in the geosciences. J. Geosci. Educ.68, 97–114. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2019.1675131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Ocean Exploration Cooperative Institute (OECI) (2023) (Tuskegee University Ocean Exploration Internship Program (OEIP). Available online at: https://web.uri.edu/oeci/education-and-outreach/tuskegee-university/ (Accessed 2/21/2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Olcott A. N. Downen M. R. (2020). The challenges of fieldwork for LGBTQ+ Geoscientists. Eos101. doi: 10.1029/2020EO148200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Orcutt B. N. Cetinić I. (2014). Women in oceanography: continuing challenges. Oceanography27, 5–13. doi: 10.5670/oceanog

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Ormand C. J. Macdonald H. Hodder J. Bragg D. Baer E. M. Eddy P. L. (2021). Making departments diverse, equitable, and inclusive: Engaging colleagues in departmental transformation through discussion groups committed to action. J. Geosci. Educ.70, 280–291. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2021.1989980

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Park J. J. Kim Y. K. Salazar C. Hayes S. (2020). Student–faculty interaction and discrimination from faculty in STEM: the link with retention. Res. Higher Educ.61, 330–356. doi: 10.1007/s11162-019-09564-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Ranganathan M. Lalk E. Freese L. M. Freilich M. A. Wilcots J. Duffy M. L. et al (2021). Trends in the representation of women among US geoscience faculty from 1999 to 2020: the long road toward gender parity. AGU Adv.2, e2021AV000436. doi: 10.1029/2021AV000436

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Roberts C. (2020). Diversity, equality and inclusion in marine science. Mar. Biologist, 28–29. Available at: https://mymba.mba.ac.uk/resource/diversity-equality-and-inclusion-in-marine-science.html

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Schmidt Ocean (2023). Available online at: https://schmidtocean.org/apply/apply-support-2020/.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Stefanoudis P. V. Licuanan W. Y. Morrison T. H. Talma S. Veitayaki J. Woodall L. C. . (2021). Turning the tide of parachute science. Curr. Biol.31,4, R184–R185. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Stofer K. A. Chandler J. W. Insalaco S. Matyas C. Lannon H. J. Judge J. et al . (2021). Two-year college students report multiple benefits from participation in an integrated geoscience research, coursework, and outreach internship program. Community Coll. Rev.49, 457–482. doi: 10.1177/00915521211026682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Stokes P. J. Levine R. Flessa K. W. (2015). Choosing the geoscience major: important factors, race/ethnicity, and gender. J. Geosci. Educ.63, 250–263. doi: 10.5408/14-038.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Stokes A. Feig A. D. Atchison C. L. Gilley B. (2019). Making geoscience fieldwork inclusive and accessible for students with disabilities. Geosphere15, 1809–1825. doi: 10.1130/GES02006.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Theising F. (2021). Let the adventure begin - my first cruise on RV SONNE (iAtlantic). Available at: https://www.iatlantic.eu/expedition_blog/let-the-adventure-begin-my-first-cruise-on-rv-sonne/.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Thompson L. Perez R. C. Shevenell A. E. (2011). Closed ranks in oceanography. Nat. Geosci.4, 211–212. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Tucker F. Horton J. (2018). The show must go on!’ Fieldwork, mental health and wellbeing in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Area51, 84–93. doi: 10.1111/area.12437

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Valenzuela-Toro A. M. Viglino M. (2021). How Latin American researchers suffer in science. Nature598, 374–375. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02601-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Vila-Concejo A. Gallop S. L. Hamylton S. M. Esteves L. S. Bryan K. R. Delgado-Fernandez I. et al . (2018). Steps to improve gender diversity in coastal geoscience and engineering. Palgrave Commun.4, 1–9. doi: 10.1057/s41599-018-0154-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Wilson A. Camille P. Jamin G. Keiara A. Madeleine K. Katherine B. et al . (2021). URGE at scripps institution of oceanography accomplishments, challenges, and future plans (AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts). U35A-2268.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Windom H. (2019). My first oceanographic research cruise / adventure to easter island (Skidaway Island, Georgia, USA: Skidaway Institute of Oceanography News). Available at: https://www.skio.uga.edu/2019/02/12/6331/.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Woolston C. (2022). Smithsonian island outpost reeling from sexual-misconduct claims. Nature. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00097-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Xia P. McSweeney K. Wen F. Song Z. Krieg M. Li S. et al . (2022). “Virtual telepresence for the future of ROV teleoperations: opportunities and challenges,” in SNAME 27th Offshore Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA. doi: 10.5957/TOS-2022-015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar