v2

1. Ginny Catania, University of Texas
Improving belonging in Greenland science

2. Ginny Catania, University of Texas
Improving belonging in Greenland science
DISCLAIMER!
‘Due to significant disparities in racial parity in academia (especially within the geosciences),
this presentation is most representative of white women, and our use of the gender binary
does not represent gender diversity in the geosciences.’
Ranganathan et al., 2021 (AGU Advances)

3. Who are minoritized in the Cryospheric sciences?
Number
of
PhDs
(Geosciences)
Adapted from Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018 (Nature)

4. Who are minoritized in the Cryospheric sciences?
PhDs
by
gender
%
(Geosciences)
Adapted from Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018 (Nature)

5. Data from AGU Cryosphere Sciences Section Dashboard
male (all member types)
male students
female (all member types)
female students
undeclared gender students
undeclared gender (all member types)
%
of
membership
AGU Cryo Section has 3X more men than women

6. Why are we doing so bad at this?
Unconscious
& Conscious
bias
Chilly
academic
climate
Unequal
access to
resources

7. Underrepresentation and bias
(Table 1). Tests of simple effects (all d < 0.33) indicated that
female faculty participants did not rate the female student as
more competent [t(62) = 0.06, P = 0.95] or hireable [t(62) = 0.41,
P = 0.69] than did male faculty. Female faculty also did not
offer more mentoring [t(62) = 0.29, P = 0.77] or a higher salary
[t(61) = 1.14, P = 0.26] to the female student than did their male
Fig. 1. Competence, hireability, and mentoring by student gender condition
(collapsed across faculty gender). All student gender differences are significant
(P < 0.001). Scales range from 1 to 7, with higher numbers reflecting a greater
extent of each variable. Error bars represent SEs. nmale student condition = 63,
nfemale student condition = 64.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
AND
COGNITIVE
SCIENCES
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor
male students
Corinne A. Moss-Racusina,b
, John F. Dovidiob
, Victoria L. Brescollc
, Mark J. Grahama,d
, and Jo Handelsmana,1
a
Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, b
Department of Psychology, c
School of Management, and d
Department of Psy
Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520
Edited* by Shirley Tilghman, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved August 21, 2012 (received for review July 2, 2012)
Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender
disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has
demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has
yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit
a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender
disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study
(n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities
rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly
assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager
position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as signifi-
cantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female
applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary
and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The
gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such
that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias
against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the
female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed
as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexist-
ing subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and
found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moder-
ating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated
with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to
reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interven-
tions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of
increasing the participation of women in science.
diversity | lifestyle choices | science education | science workforce
gender disparity in science (9–11), and that it “is not
discrimination in these domains” (10). This assertio
ceived substantial attention and generated significan
among the scientific community, leading some to conc
gender discrimination indeed does not exist nor contrib
gender disparity within academic science (e.g., refs. 12
Despite this controversy, experimental research testi
presence and magnitude of gender discrimination i
ological and physical sciences has yet to be conducted.
acknowledging that various lifestyle choices likely con
the gender imbalance in science (9–11), the present r
unique in investigating whether faculty gender bias exi
academic biological and physical sciences, and whethe
exert an independent effect on the gender disparity as
progress through the pipeline to careers in science. Sp
the present experiment examined whether, given a
qualified male and female student, science faculty
would show preferential evaluation and treatment of
student to work in their laboratory. Although the cor
and related laboratory studies discussed below suggest
bias is likely (contrary to previous arguments) (9–11), w
no previous experiments that have tested for faculty bi
female students within academic science.
If faculty express gender biases, we are not sugge
these biases are intentional or stem from a conscious
impede the progress of women in science. Past studie
that people’s behavior is shaped by implicit or unintend
examine the processes underscoring faculty gender bias, we
reverted to standard practices at this point by averaging the
standardized salary variable with the competence scale items to
create a robust composite competence variable (α = 0.86). This
composite competence variable was used in all subsequent me-
diation and moderation analyses.
Fig. 2. Salary conferral by student gender condition (collapsed across faculty
gender). The student gender difference is significant (P < 0.01). The scale
ranges from $15,000 to $50,000. Error bars represent SEs. nmale student condition =
63, nfemale student condition = 64.

8. How bias shows up…
• Overburden of service
• Not knowing the
hidden rules
• Issues with
Promotion/Tenure
• Less Salary
• Unequal Access to
resources
• Lack of mentorship
• Lack of collaborators

9. Chilly academic/research climate
“I was [sic] belittled and gaslighted from the first day by a male colleague who refused to
reply to emails because I addressed him by his first name, withholding data from me,
presenting my work as his own, treating me like a secretary...I never published good work
over those 4 years because he made it so difficult”
“...they made my first trip to Greenland really, really uncomfortable. They belittled the work
we were doing, peed abnormally close to our camp and called us ‘the girly camp’ because
we had multiple female members”
“...I experienced [sic] threats of self-harm/suicide (by the offender), threats of violence (to me),
stalking including showing up at my house in the middle of the night, threats against people
who spoke as witnesses in the multiple court cases to get restraining orders against him…”
“I am so sick of being mansplained to by my male colleagues much younger than me, who
literally forget I know stuff”
All quotes reproduced with permission
“When I was in the field on my first NSF-funded project as a PI a colleague mentioned to me
that the only reason I got funded was because I was a woman.”

10. “Relentless pressure for dates or sex is an obvious
violation of policy. Gender harassment is more
difficult, for instance masquerading as scholarly
criticism. Each individual act may seem too trivial
to report, but the cumulative impact can be
devastating.”

12. Unequal access to social support networks
image contributed to storyblocks.com by milkmanwest
NASEM, 2021. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Because women are underrepresented in most STEM
fields, particularly in the upper echelons, they are more
likely to experience academic isolation, including
limited access to mentors, sponsors, and role models
that share gender, racial, or ethnic identities. Coupled
with the physical isolation in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, women in academic STEM are isolated
within their fields, networks, and communities, putting
at risk the progress they have made in building
networks and maintaining collaborations.

13. Inception of the university system excluded women: Western science was masculine by design.
Contributions by women were largely ignored: In the 1800s, expeditions into the field were led by men, and the
emerging field of glaciology was developed by those men. Women regularly attended such expeditions, making
observations and collecting data, but were remembered as wives of an expedition’s male members and not as
scientists in their own right.1
Academic skill is conflated with outdoorsmanship: Outdoors experience, considered a prerequisite to glaciology, is
more common among men than women2 and requires financial means, presenting a barrier-to-entry for potential
scientists. Even today, media coverage and conversations within glaciology often focus on tales of difficult field work
and extra-academic adventures.3
University of
Oxford founded
1920
First female members
elected to Royal Society
1100s
Women made eligible for
full admission at Oxford
1945
1660
Royal Society of
London founded
Female exclusion in glaciology
Slide from Glaciology, Race, and Masculinity by Seth Olinger

14. Inception of the university system excluded women: Western science was masculine by design.
Contributions by women were largely ignored: In the 1800s, expeditions into the field were led by men, and the
emerging field of glaciology was developed by those men. Women regularly attended such expeditions, making
observations and collecting data, but were remembered as wives of an expedition’s male members and not as
scientists in their own right.1
Academic skill is conflated with outdoorsmanship: Outdoors experience, considered a prerequisite to glaciology, is
more common among men than women2 and requires financial means, presenting a barrier-to-entry for potential
scientists. Even today, media coverage and conversations within glaciology often focus on tales of difficult field work
and extra-academic adventures.3
University of
Oxford founded
1920
First female members
elected to Royal Society
1100s
Women made eligible for
full admission at Oxford
1945
1660
Royal Society of
London founded
Female exclusion in glaciology
Slide from Glaciology, Race, and Masculinity by Seth Olinger
1Women in Glaciology, a Historical Perspective (Hulbe et al 2010)

15. Inception of the university system excluded women: Western science was masculine by design.
Contributions by women were largely ignored: In the 1800s, expeditions into the field were led by men, and the
emerging field of glaciology was developed by those men. Women regularly attended such expeditions, making
observations and collecting data, but were remembered as wives of an expedition’s male members and not as
scientists in their own right.1
Academic skill is conflated with outdoorsmanship: Outdoors experience, considered a prerequisite to glaciology, is
more common among men than women2 and requires financial means, presenting a barrier-to-entry for potential
scientists. Even today, media coverage and conversations within glaciology often focus on tales of difficult field work
and extra-academic adventures.3
University of
Oxford founded
1920
First female members
elected to Royal Society
1100s
Women made eligible for
full admission at Oxford
1945
1660
Royal Society of
London founded
Female exclusion in glaciology
Slide from Glaciology, Race, and Masculinity by Seth Olinger
1Women in Glaciology, a Historical Perspective (Hulbe et al 2010)
2REI Gender and the Outdoors https://www.rei.com/blog/hike/closing-gender-gap-great-outdoors
3Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research (Carey et al 2016)

16. Our research culture needs to change
“Academic culture is the sum of all our words, actions,
and beliefs. It can feel intimidating to talk about how
to change the culture, but we do that with everything
we do, say, and think. Progress may feel slow at
times, but it is real.”
Jen Heemstra

17. The impact of academic culture on diversity

18. The impact of academic culture on diversity

19. ● Initiated in Summer 2021
● Over 260 members mostly from Europe and N. Amer.
● Member demographics include wide range of
seniority (tenured professors/researchers to graduate
students) and cryo. interests
● Group was advertised via Twitter initially, and
remains open to new members
Slack provides community, mentorship,
advice-hive that many are missing
Scan this code to join!

20. Why this works: Slack (read: casual txt message exchange) (a) initiated collective
action in an underclass of workers and (b) gave management access to perspectives
they would not have easy access to and (c) upended social hierarchies generally.
“On Slack, everyone has the same size megaphone, regardless of hierarchy or chain
of command.”
Slackers of the World Unite! The Atlantic, Oct. 2021
Slack provides community, mentorship,
advice-hive that many are missing

21. 1) member support for decision-making, vents, sharing successes etc.
● Catching up after a career break/slump
● Dealing with challenging colleagues (within the discipline and within
individual institutions)
● Issues related to career transitions (starting an academic career, moving into
administration, leaving glaciology, etc.)
2) sharing of knowledge and resources of support
● Dealing with soft money fund-raising
● Work-life balance
3) coordination of nominations for awards
4) new collaborations for scientific, educational, and diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives
Early successes of the Slack workspace

22. 1) it remains challenging to address intersectionality
● populations of intersectional people are far too low for adequate support of
each identity (sexual, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.)
2) lack of person-to-person communication
● knowing people and talking in person provides better context for discussions
3) we are still learning from each other
● this may come with the realization that one has more power/privilege than
you think
Early challenges of the Slack workspace

23. What can the FOGSS community do?
1) engage more of the dominant demographic in solutions
2) provide support for collaboration on research
● follow up meeting with a call for white papers based on breakouts?
● organize for an ITGC-style approach for tackling outstanding issues for GrIS,
but with a requisite of collaboration across ranks
3) mentorship from those outside of our Slack
● we all need guidance on navigating the complex landscape of academia
4) examine how science is conducted and where knowledge comes from
• see Melody Burkins talk
• voice support for double-blind peer review in other funding programs

24. What can the FOGSS community do?

29. FOGSS Workshop 2023
Beverly Walker
Science Analyst at NSF OPP
Acting Executive Secretary IARPC
Photo: Alexis Bonogofsky/USFWS

30. What is IARPC?
2
Interagency
Arctic
Research
Policy
Committee
Photo: Lisa Hupp/USFWS

31. What is IARPC?
3
Established by the Arctic
Research & Policy Act
(ARPA) of 1984
Photo: Kim Kenny, via NSD

32. IARPC Agencies
text

33. IARPC Community Organization
Priority Area
Collaboration Teams
Foundational Activity
Collaboration Teams
Communities of
Practice
Community Resilience &
Health
Arctic Systems Interactions
Participatory Research &
Indigenous Leadership in
Research
Sustainable Economies &
Livelihoods
Risk Management & Hazard
Mitigation
Data Management
Education, Training, &
Capacity Building
Monitoring, Observing,
Modeling, & Prediction
Technology Innovation &
Application
Field Operations
Atmosphere
Coastal Resilience
Diversity & Inclusion
Glaciers & Sea Level
Permafrost
Marine Ecosystems
Modelers
Observations
Physical Oceanography
Health & Well-Being
Sea Ice
Terrestrial Ecosystems

34. IARPC Secretariat
Larry Hinzman
Executive Director
Beverly Walker
Acting Executive Secretary
Meredith LaValley
Collaboration Teams Director
Liz Weinberg
Engagement Director
Sorina Stalla
Implementation
Director
Hazel Shapiro
USAON Program
Assistant
Sarah Tucker
Knauss Fellow

37. Glaciers & Sea Level
Community of Practice

38. Photo: Lisa Hupp/USFWS
Principles for Conducting Research in the Arctic
Be Accountable
Establish Effective Communication
Respect Indigenous Knowledge and
Cultures
Build and Sustain Relationships
Pursue Responsible Environmental
Stewardship

39. IARPC Collaborations

40. Community Organization
Priority Area
Collaboration Teams
Foundational Activity
Collaboration Teams
Communities of
Practice
Community Resilience &
Health
Arctic Systems Interactions
Participatory Research &
Indigenous Leadership in
Research
Sustainable Economies &
Livelihoods
Risk Management & Hazard
Mitigation
Data Management
Education, Training, &
Capacity Building
Monitoring, Observing,
Modeling, & Prediction
Technology Innovation &
Application
Field Operations
Atmosphere
Coastal Resilience
Diversity & Inclusion
Glaciers & Sea Level
Permafrost
Marine Ecosystems
Modelers
Observations
Physical Oceanography
Health & Well-Being
Sea Ice
Terrestrial Ecosystems

41. Any Questions?
Photo: DOI
iarpccollaborations.org/plan