The geosciences have the lowest racial and ethnic diversity of all science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at all levels of higher education, and atmospheric science is emblematic of this discrepancy (NSF 2019). Despite a growing awareness of the problem, Black, Indigenous, people of color, persons with disabilities, women, and LGBTQIA+ persons continue to be largely absent in academic programs and in the geoscience workforce. Bernard and Cooperdock (2018) highlight that in the past 40 years, the number of granted PhDs in geosciences has remained flat and there has been “no progress on diversity.” Diversity and inclusion initiatives will not be enough if all geoscience community members cannot achieve a sense of belonging (Dutt 2019; Puritty et al. 2017). In addition, diversity and inclusion efforts without strategic actions and measurable goals will not be effective in dismantling systemic racism and bias (Morris 2021). Further, abundant research indicates that the negative effects of global change will fall most heavily upon those underrepresented in the geosciences (Pörtner et al. 2022). This situation suggests that the training and research most needed to mitigate and adapt to global change excludes a substantial population, limiting valuable contributions these populations offer to the geoscience workforce.
New approaches, new entry points, and higher levels of engagement are needed to foster a diverse community of researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the geosciences. There have been several widely read opinion and commentary articles, over the last few years, that reinforce the community needs and challenges to do the necessary work to make the geosciences diverse, equitable, and inclusive (Burt et al. 2022; Ormand et al. 2022; Morris 2021; Morales et al. 2021; Harris et al. 2021; Quardokus Fisher et al. 2019). One challenge, among many, is that diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and justice (DEIAJ) initiatives are often siloed from many aspects of the scientific process, training in geoscience curriculum, aspects of professional development for faculty and researchers, and portions of the geoscience scientific community. The development and implementation of our course represents our attempt to center DEIAJ principles in scientific research, education, mentorship, training, and professional development as part of our graduate education process. In the context of coursework, it highlights the importance of intentionally building these valued skills.
Here we describe the course design and content, student experiences, and learning from the course. We then conclude with strategies for departmental adoption in the broader geoscience community.
Course design and content.
Course overview.
ATS 660 Social Responsibility in Atmospheric Science was piloted in Fall 2021 with an enrollment of 12 graduate students. In Fall 2022, 13 graduate students enrolled. Typical graduate course enrollments for elective courses enroll 5–8 students. The course is designed to provide students an opportunity to expand their personal and professional growth through readings, video lectures, guest speakers, and other activities to gain a critical understanding of intersectionality, gender, social identity, systems of oppression, and historical perspectives on social change movements. Students engage with a diversity of scholarship to develop a robust understanding of foundational concepts and practices for personal and social change and to incorporate and disseminate these concepts through their science. The course content is designed to enable students to 1) identify how social identity (race, gender, sexuality, ability) shapes scientific thought and practice; 2) evaluate and explain the impacts (positive and negative) of science and technology on marginalized groups; 3) identify and respond to manifestations of implicit and explicit bias in STEM; 4) recognize social justice issues in the geoscience community and beyond and be able to design and implement interventions to affect change; and 5) act as advocates and allies for people with different life experiences than their own.
Instructional approach.
The course embodies inclusive and intersectional teaching practices to ensure that all students thrive and that the broad range of diversity (e.g., race, national origin, abilities) within the class enriches learning (Lawrie et al. 2017). This approach attends to social identities and positionalities and seeks to change the ways systemic inequities shape dynamics in teaching–learning spaces, affect individuals’ experiences of those spaces, and influence course and curriculum design (Iturbe-LaGrave 2020a,b; CRLT 2020). Instructors and students co-created expectations of one another during the first week of the course using activities described in Brookfield and Preskill (2012). We took time to allow everyone to share what they need to authentically participate, what they feel are the most important topics for discussion, and their goals for the course. Based on this activity, we established ground rules and provided students with examples of both listening and speaking ground rules from Caldwell and Frame (2016). We revisited “our expectations” continually over the semester for accountability.
Course content.
During the first week of the course, we invited ImprovScience (https://improvscience.org/) to design and lead a 2-h session where the entire class (i.e., students and instructors) engaged in improvisational exercises and discussion. This program uses improv theater techniques to break down traditional barriers and build meaningful connections in groups and teams and demonstrates the value of diverse voices in teamwork and leadership. One example of an outstanding module led by ImprovScience included an exercise in saying “yes, and” in response to intentionally outlandish and sometimes off-the-wall ideas from the team. This exercise taught all participants that even if the idea was bold and hard to imagine as a success, by saying “yes, and” to the person and contributing helpful ways to make the idea successful, team dynamics and comradery were quickly built among the class. This and other group activities quickly broke down social barriers between participants, demonstrated the value of diverse voices in leadership, and enabled engaging and honest conversations about hard topics in the discussions that followed this program. We used many of the techniques from that first class to maintain a safe and inclusive learning environment throughout the semester. Throughout the duration of the course, students read a wide variety of high-impact publications and listened to several podcasts related to each module topic. We used a specific discussion framework [i.e., pyramid discussions (Brainfeed Magazine 2022) with focused questions] to ensure a robust and inclusive conversation of each set of readings (and podcasts). The remaining modules (as shown in Fig. 1) covered the following material: social identity, bias in STEM, gender and racial equity, intersectionality, critical race theory, sexual and gender harassment, cognitive and physical disability as it applies to the geosciences, stereotype threat and imposter experience, inclusion and belonging, allyship, and science communication. New readings and activities were added after the pilot year based on feedback from student participants. One example of new content was the inclusion of an interactive module called WAGES (Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation), an experiential learning activity designed to educate individuals about the sources and cumulative effects of unconscious bias that underlie the development of inequity in the workplace, and that good intentions alone cannot prevent (Cundiff et al. 2014; Zawadzki et al. 2014, 2012; Shields et al. 2011). At the end of the course students work either individually or in small teams to develop a community action service-learning project that is their final deliverable of the course. The weekly syllabus, which includes the weekly topic, interactive activities, and readings, is provided in Fig. 1.
Example of week to week syllabus. Course syllabus can be found at https://www.atmos.colostate.edu/gradprog/courses.php.
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 9; 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0077.1
Examples of service-learning projects and community engagement
Consistent with many graduate courses in our department, students complete a final project. Based on course content and discussions, students worked in small teams to develop a community action service-learning project. Select examples of projects from Fall 2021 and Fall 2022 are provided in Fig. 2.
Sample student project descriptions and their direct departmental impact(s).
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 9; 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0077.1
Student experiences.
Using a mixed-method approach of surveys and interviews, the course was evaluated and reviewed by the Colorado State University (CSU) STEM Center (an external and independent evaluation) to better understand the student learning process and help course instructors improve course content and delivery.
Fall 2021 cohort.
For the Fall 2021 cohort, the CSU STEM Center conducted a pre- and post-course online survey (via Qualtrics) and follow-up interviews. The survey tool used both open-ended qualitative and semantic differential quantitative questions to assess student learning outcomes related to the specific course objectives of fostering DEIAJ knowledge, DEIAJ promoting practices, and long-term DEIAJ behaviors (see Table S1 in the online supplemental material). It also asked about previous experience with DEIAJ activities, and 73% (n = 11) of respondents indicated that they had previously engaged with DEIAJ courses, events, or opportunities.
The qualitative questions of the survey centered on students’ definitions of core course concepts such as social identity and privilege, their perceived equity promoting practices, and long-term equity intentions and behaviors. We analyzed these questions by summarizing the general themes that appeared, focusing on how the content of the responses changed. Figure 3 highlights two examples of qualitative responses and how they changed. The first example is of a concept definition, with the responses indicating that while the student entered the class with a notable basic understanding, they also exhibited a level of growth and complexity to their definitions in the post survey with added nuance and application-based insights. This is a pattern seen in many of the responses to questions about concept definitions. In the second example, we also observed changes in students’ perceptions of their equity promoting practices, suggesting that students gained an understanding of ways they could put their knowledge into action, as well as a deeper understanding of the ways inequity and bias show up in atmospheric science. Overall, the qualitative data from this survey suggests that students entered into the course with a basic level of understanding and experience, potentially an indication of self-selection bias into the course, but nevertheless gained valuable insights and application based knowledge.
Examples of Fall 2021 cohort qualitative response pre–post changes.
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 9; 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0077.1
The quantitative questions in the survey asked students to rank their levels of comfort and confidence in identifying and addressing bias, as well as their interest in pursuing DEIAJ now or in the future. We analyzed these data using descriptive statistics and the exact sign test (Gibbons and Chakraborti 2010) of 11 paired pre–post responses. The exact sign test indicated that the medians of the paired pre–post differences were statistically significantly different than zero for a few questions: students’ level of comfort identifying their own biases toward other people, races/ethnicities, and/or cultures (p = 0.031); level of confidence in identifying examples of bias in their life and/or workplace (p = 0.016); and level of comfort advocating for those experiencing bias (p = 0.016). This means that the null hypothesis of no change between pre-/post-tests was rejected, and further, based on the number of positive changes (i.e., higher post scores than pre), there is some support that students experienced increases in their respective levels of comfort and confidence in these domains (see Table S2 for full results). Nonetheless, these conclusions should not be interpreted to apply outside this context given the small sample size and the internally derived (i.e., nonpsychometrically tested) nature of the questions. Rather the purpose was to provide data to 1) inform how the course should develop and 2) understand potential impact.
Follow-up interviews were also conducted to gain a deeper understanding of students’ experiences in the course, particularly around their perceived gains and the role of the course structure on their learning. While only 3 of the 12 students were available or agreed to participate, overall, they found the course interesting and valuable and emphasized the importance of its role in providing tangible, grounding knowledge around concepts that often feel difficult to articulate. Students also valued the contributions of guest speakers and the general structure of the class with its emphasis on discussion and connecting clearly to the readings. Finally, they felt empowered to begin engaging with DEIAJ where they were in their understanding and experience and did not have to do it “perfectly”—it became less of a daunting task than they previously thought. The main constructive critique of the course was that at times some materials and/or topics were repetitive, and they wished content adapted to knowledge they already had.
Fall 2022 cohort.
Based on these initial promising findings about the impact of the course on improving students’ knowledge, attitudes, and engagement around DEIAJ in atmospheric science, the evaluation shifted tactics for the Fall 2022 cohort. We utilized a baseline survey to guide the development of the course to reflect the incoming students experience and knowledge (i.e., a formative assessment tool) as a reflection of the likelihood of self-selection bias into the course as well as the expressed student interest in such adjustments. The baseline survey showed that students’ knowledge and experience entering the course was similar to the Fall 2021 cohort—84.6% of respondents (n = 13) indicated previously engaging with DEIAJ courses, events, or opportunities before the course and their definitions of core concepts were similar in their level of detail and understanding. We also asked about their motivations to take the course, and students’ responses centered around wanting to deepen their understanding of DEIAJ, leverage their lived experiences, and develop skills for how to address it in their work and lives. This information was used to gain insights on baseline knowledge of course participants and to determine the appropriate focal areas for course content.
People can take a variety of actions to address issues of prejudice, discrimination, and injustices. Listed below are different actions. Indicate how confident you felt about your abilities in each of the actions BEFORE participating in the course and how confident you feel now AFTER participating in the course.
This stem was then followed by a number of items for students to rank their confidence, such as “Recognize and challenge the biases that affect my own thinking.” We used a retrospective post format versus the pre-test/post-test design to reflect logistical needs as well as the documented benefits of improved accuracy of retrospective designs (Drennan and Hyde 2008; Howard et al. 1979). We selected the specific scales within the intergroup collaboration and action construct of self-directed action, other-directed action, intergroup collaboration, and post-college involvement as the most relevant to the course (Table A.5 in Gurin et al. 2013), omitting some items within these subscales that were not relevant to the course. We also utilized the pedagogy related scales of content, structured interactions, and intergroup dialogue facilitator effectiveness (Table A.7 in Gurin et al. 2013).
For the intergroup collaboration and action subscales, a comparison of the distribution of how students scored the items before and after participating in the course suggests overall increases in confidence and valuation in these domains. For example, in the self-directed action subscale items, students only selected feeling “not at all confident” when thinking about before participating in the course, a response category that shrunk to zero when thinking about their feeling after participating in the course. Similarly, feeling extremely confident for an item became more frequently selected after participating in the course (e.g., Fig. 4).
Self-directed action distribution of items pre- and post-course, in response to the following prompt: “People can take a variety of actions to address issues of prejudice, discrimination, and injustices. Listed below are different actions. Indicate your level of confidence.”
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 9; 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0077.1
We also used descriptive statistics and a paired t test to analyze differences in the before and after course composite subscale scores. There were no extreme outliers, and the differences of subscale scores were normally distributed according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk 1965), except for self-directed action and intergroup collaboration subscales. However, since t tests are robust to Type I errors, we elected to still use this approach. We nonetheless compared this analysis to the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Woolson 2008) for these two subscales, and the conclusions were the same, further indicating confidence in the results. All after-course subscale scores for intergroup collaboration and action were statistically significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the before-course scores, suggesting students experienced notable gains in these areas (see Table S3).
For the pedagogy-related scales, students predominantly indicated that the content (i.e., assigned readings, journals or reflection prompts, and other written assignments) and structural elements (i.e., structured activities and exercises, ground rules for discussion, small groups of students, diverse groups of students, and collaborative projects) of the course contributed very much to their learning. For all of these items, 50% or more of students selected a 4 or 5 (1 = did not contribute to learning at all, 5 = contributed very much to learning), with “other written assignments” being the lowest with 50% of students selecting 4 or 5, and “collaborative projects” being the highest with 92% of students selecting 4 or 5. Further, students also predominantly indicated that instructors were very effective across all items of the instruction subscale—every item had 85% or more of students selecting a 4 or 5 (1 = not at all effective, 5 = very much effective) (see Fig. 5). These results suggest that the course content, structure, and instructional style are a good fit for the goals of the course and student learning needs.
Importance of content and structural elements for learning, in response to the following prompt: “Listed here are different educational features. How much did each component contribute to your learning in the course?”
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 9; 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0077.1
Lessons learned on departmental adoption.
Based on the findings from student surveys and our experiences implementing this course, we offer the following set of practical recommendations for adoptions.
- 1)Identify instructor(s) with expertise in DEIAJ. Our team has expertise implementing numerous DEIAJ initiatives including inclusive mentoring programs (e.g., Burt et al. 2023; Fischer et al. 2018), preventing sexual harassment, and transformative research experiences for marginalized students (Burt et al. 2016; Rasmussen et al. 2021). We also regularly participate in community conversations surrounding DEIAJ issues in the Earth sciences (e.g., Burt et al. 2022; Haacker et al. 2022; Morales et al. 2021). This experience helped us respond to many student questions in the moment based on familiarity with a wide swath of literature. Many institutions may need to further develop faculty competencies in order to deliver a course with the content outlined above. We also suggest that institutions consider inviting faculty with complementary DEIAJ expertise from outside of your department to co-teaching the course.
- 2)Ensure the credit level of the course is consistent with other graduate classes. Most graduate level courses in our department are offered as two-credit courses, and the course described above is consistent with the workload associated with two credit hours. This helps to set expectations for workload and indicates that this course is similarly challenging to other courses in our graduate program. New courses can be viewed as competing with existing courses for enrollment. Minimize this issue by avoiding scheduling conflicts. We also implemented this as two consecutive hours on one weekday. This avoided cutting off productive conversations.
- 3)Implement this course using an in-person format. This course was first implemented in Fall 2021 and offered in a face-to-face format. Given safety issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, we allowed students to join remotely as needed. Based on this experience, we strongly discourage a hybrid approach. It was difficult to maintain group discussion formats with one or two students online. We recommend an in-person format given research that online courses often have lower student participation without significant instructor effort (Reinholz et al. 2020).
- 4)Acquire support for the initial class period designed to remove social barriers and for guest speakers. As discussed above, ImprovScience designed and led a 2-h session to enable engaging and honest conversations about hard topics. We used techniques from that first class to maintain a safe and inclusive learning environment throughout the semester. There is a fee associated with this service, but similar expertise may be available through other institutions. We recommend seeking support for this early. We also had excellent feedback on guest lectures led by faculty members from outside the department with research expertise on critical race theory, disability, and accessibility, to name a few.
- 5)Identify appropriate and impactful project options. Students may need help identifying projects that are appropriate in scope, can be completed during the timeline of a semester, and have the potential for impact (locally or nationally). In the first iteration of the course, we gave students relatively little guidance to encourage creativity and introduced the project midway through the course. These choices required substantial iteration of project topics and projects that extended after the end of the semester. We recommend introducing the project early in the semester and providing clear guidelines and/or examples.
Looking forward
As a community, we can advance DEIAJ and achieve our goals if we incorporate it into the fabric of all aspects of scientific endeavors, including our educational and research practices. This will bridge the gap by creating entry points of engagement earlier and recognizing and valuing it as part of the scientific process. Quite simply, higher levels of engagement are needed to foster a diverse geoscience community. Oftentimes the people that are attracted to engaging in DEIAJ work are the most marginalized and directly impacted by the systemic inequities. The course we outlined above may be one step toward reducing capacity issues for DEIAJ efforts by helping graduate students have the awareness and skills to work on difficult problems. We would be remiss if we did not also acknowledge the recent politicization of DEIAJ efforts at all levels of education. DEIAJ is foundational to the core mission of higher education and skills in this realm are needed for problem-solving, decision-making, and leadership.
Acknowledgments.
Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation through DCL: GOLD-EN EAGER 2039480. We would like to extend a thank you to ImprovScience and Affinity Arts Consulting for challenging us to engage in creative ways. We thank Christopher Atchison, Lynn Hempel, Nicole Kelp, Naomi Nishi, and Ian Castro who shared their experiences and expertise in the course.
Data availability statement.
Evaluation data collected and presented in this article was conducted by the CSU STEM Center, which facilitates STEM education-based program, research, and evaluation activities. Access to our survey instrument via Mountain Scholar at https://hdl.handle.net/10217/236182.
References
Amano, T., J. P. González-Varo, and W. J. Sutherland, 2016: Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLOS Biol., 14, e2000933, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933.
Atchison, C. L., A. M. Marshall, and T. D. Collins, 2019: A multiple case study of inclusive learning communities enabling active participation in geoscience field courses for students with physical disabilities. J. Geosci. Educ., 67, 472–486, https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1600962.
Brainfeed Magazine, 2022: Pyramid discussions gaining ground. 15 June, https://brainfeedmagazine.com/pyramid-discussions-gaining-ground/.
Bernard, R. E., and E. H. G. Cooperdock, 2018: No progress on diversity in 40 years. Nat. Geosci., 11, 292–295, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6.
Brookfield, S. D., and S. Preskill, 2012: Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. John Wiley and Sons, 336 pp.
Burt, M. A., R. Haacker, R. L. Batchelor, and A. S. Denning, 2016: Increasing the diversity of your graduate program: Translating best practices into success. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, 1169–1172, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00004.1.
Burt, M. A., R. Haacker, P. Montaño, M. Vara, and V. Sloan, 2022: The ethics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in the Earth system sciences. Front. Phys., 10, 1085789, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.1085789.
Burt, M. A., R. T. Barnes, S. Schanz, S. Clinton, and E. V. Fischer, 2023: Mentorship builds inclusivity and belonging in the geosciences. Eos, 104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EO230020.
Caldwell, M., and O. Frame, 2016: Let’s Get Real: Exploring Race, Class, and Gender Identities in the Classroom. Routledge, 220 pp.
Cheeseman, M. J., and Coauthors, 2022: Disparities in air pollutants across racial, ethnic, and poverty groups at US public schools. GeoHealth, 6, e2022GH000672, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000672.
Clancy, K. B. H., K. M. N. Lee, E. M. Rodgers, and C. Richey, 2017: Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: Women of color face greater risks of gendered and racial harassment. J. Geophys. Res. Planets, 122, 1610–1623, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JE005256.
Coeckelbergh, M., 2021: AI for climate: Freedom, justice, and other ethical and political challenges. AI Ethics, 1, 67–72, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00007-2.
Cooperdock, E. H. G., C. Y. Chen, V. E. Guevara, and J. R. Metcalf, 2021: Counteracting systemic bias in the lab, field, and classroom. AGU Adv., 2, e2020AV000353, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000353.
CRLT, 2020: Inclusive teaching Michigan. Center for Research, Learning and Teaching, accessed 10 June 2020, https://crlt.umich.edu/overview-inclusive-teaching-michigan.
Cundiff, J. L., M. J. Zawadzki, C. L. Danube, and S. A. Shields, 2014: Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. J. Soc. Issues, 70, 703–721, https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087.
Dowey, N., and Coauthors, 2021: A UK perspective on tackling the geoscience racial diversity crisis in the Global North. Nat. Geosci., 14, 256–259, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00737-w.
Drennan, J., and A. Hyde, 2008: Controlling response shift bias: The use of the retrospective pre‐test design in the evaluation of a master’s programme. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ., 33, 699–709, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701773026.
Dutt, K., 2019: Race and racism in the geosciences. Nat. Geosci., 13, 2–3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0519-z.
Dutt, K., D. L. Pfaff, A. F. Bernstein, J. S. Dillard, and C. J. Block, 2016: Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience. Nat. Geosci., 9, 805–808, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2819.
Fischer, E. V., and Coauthors, 2018: Welcoming women into the geosciences. Eos, 99, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO095017.
Fischer, E. V., and Coauthors, 2021: Leveraging field-campaign networks to identify sexual harassment in atmospheric science and pilot promising interventions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 102, E2137–E2150, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0341.1.
Gardner, S. K., 2013: The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Dir. Higher Educ., 2013, 43–54, https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20064.
Gardner, S. K., and K. A. Holley, 2011: “Those invisible barriers are real”: The progression of first-generation students through doctoral education. Equity Excellence Educ., 44, 77–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.529791.
Gibbons, J. D., and S. Chakraborti, 2010: Nonparametric Statistical Inference. 5th ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 650 pp., https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439896129.
Gibney, E., 2022: Women more likely to win awards that are not named after men. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01506-4.
Gurin, P., B. R. A. Nagda, and X. Zúñiga, 2013: Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation, 479 pp.
Haacker, R., M. Burt, and M. Vara, 2022: Moving beyond the business case for diversity. Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220080.
Harris, L. A., and Coauthors, 2021: Equitable exchange: A framework for diversity and inclusion in the geosciences. AGU Adv., 2, e2020AV000359, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000359.
Howard, G. S., K. M. Ralph, N. A. Gulanick, S. E. Maxwell, D. Nance, and S. K. Gerber, 1979: Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Appl. Psychol. Meas., 3 (1), 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300101.
Hunter, N. B., M. A. North, and R. Slotow, 2021: The marginalisation of voice in the fight against climate change: The case of Lusophone Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy, 120, 213–221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.012.
Iturbe-LaGrave, V., 2020a: DU inclusive teaching practices website: Inclusive pedagogy module. Accessed 4 June 2020, http://inclusive-teaching.du.edu/inclusive-pedagogy.
Iturbe-LaGrave, V., 2020b: DU inclusive teaching practices website: Intersectional pedagogy module. Accessed 4 June 2020, http://inclusive-teaching.du.edu/intersectional-pedagogy.
Johnson, A. E., and K. K. Wilkinson, 2020: All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis. 1st ed. Random House Publishing, 448 pp.
Kingsbury, C. G., E. C. Sibert, Z. Killingback, and C. L. Atchison, 2020: “Nothing about us without us:” The perspectives of autistic geoscientists on inclusive instructional practices in geoscience education. J. Geosci. Educ., 68, 302–310, https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2020.1768017.
Lasker, G. A., K. E. Mellor, M. L. Mullins, S. M. Nesmith, and N. J. Simcox, 2017: Social and environmental justice in the chemistry classroom. J. Chem. Educ., 94, 983–987, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00968.
Lawrie, G., E. Marquis, E. Fuller, T. Newman, M. Qui, M. Nomikoudis, F. Roelofs, and L. van Dam, 2017: Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: A synthesis of recent literature. Teach. Learn. Inquiry, 5, 9–21, https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.3.
Mattheis, A., M. Murphy, and E. Marin-Spiotta, 2019: Examining intersectionality and inclusivity in geosciences education research: A synthesis of the literature 2008–2018. J. Geosci. Educ., 67, 505–517, https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1656522.
Mattheis, A., E. Marín-Spiotta, S. Nandihalli, B. Schneider, and R. T. Barnes, 2022: “Maybe this is just not the place for me:” Gender harassment and discrimination in the geosciences. PLOS ONE 17, e0268562, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268562.
Morales, A., C. L. Walker, D. L. Carroll-Smith, and M. A. Burt, 2021: Code-switching and assimilation in STEM culture. Eos, 102, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EO161232.
Morris, V. R., 2021: Combating racism in the geosciences: Reflections from a black professor. AGU Adv., 2, e2020AV000358, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000358.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. B. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman, 2012: Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 16 474–16 479, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
NSF, 2019: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Special Rep. NSF 19-304, 74 pp., https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.
Ormand, C. J., R. H. Macdonald, J. Hodder, D. D. Bragg, E. M. D. Baer, and P. Eddy, 2022: Making departments diverse, equitable, and inclusive: Engaging colleagues in departmental transformation through discussion groups committed to action. J. Geosci. Educ., 70, 280–291, https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2021.1989980.
Pörtner, H.-O., and Coauthors, 2022: Technical summary. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, H.-O. Pörtner et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 37–118, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.002.
Powell, K., 2018: These labs are remarkably diverse—Here’s why they’re winning at science. Nature, 558, 19–22, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05316-5.
Puritty, C., L. R. Strickland, E. Alia, B. Blonde, E. Klein, M. T. Kohl, and L. R. Gerber, 2017: Without inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough. Science, 357, 1101–1102, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9054.
Quardokus Fisher, K., K. Kaufman, O. Calagna, L. Myles, C. Brinkworth, D. R. Simmons, and P. G. Dixon, 2019: Developing scientists as champions of diversity to transform the geosciences. J. Geosci. Educ., 67, 459–471, https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1618692.
Ranganathan, M., E. Lalk, L. M. Freese, M. A. Freilich, J. Wilcots, M. L. Duffy, and R. Shivamoggi, 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, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021AV000436.
Rasmussen, K. L., M. A. Burt, A. K. Rowe, R. Haacker, D. Hence, L. M. Luna, S. W. Nesbitt, and J. Maertens, 2021: Enlightenment strikes! Broadening graduate school training through field campaign participation. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 102, E1987–E2001, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0062.1.
Reinholz, D. L., A. Stone-Jphnstone, I. White, L. M. Sianez, and N. Shah, 2020: A pandemic crash course: Learning to teach equitable in synchronous online classes. CBE Life Sci. Educ., 19, ar60, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-06-0126.
Shapiro, S. S., and M. B. Wilk, 1965: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 591–611, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.
Shields, S. A., M. J. Zawadzki, and R. N. Johnson, 2011: The impact of a workshop activity for gender equity simulation in the academy (WAGES-Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. J. Diversity Higher Educ., 4, 120–129, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022953.
Steele, C. M., 2010, Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. W.W. Norton and Company, 242 pp.
Tulshyan, R., and J.-A. Burey, 2021: Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. Harvard Business Review, 11 February, https://hbr.org/2021/02/stop-telling-women-they-have-imposter-syndrome.
Willis, L. M., D. Mehta, and A. Davis, 2020: Twelve principles trainees, PIs, departments, and faculties can use to reduce bias and discrimination in STEM. ACS Cent. Sci., 6, 2294–2300, https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c01120.
Wofford, A. M., K. A. Griffin, and J. Roksa, 2021: Unequal expectations: First-generation and continuing generation students’ anticipated relationships with doctoral advisors in STEM. Higher Educ., 82, 1013–1029, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00713-8.
Woolson, R. F., 2008: Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials, Wiley, 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct979.
Zawadzki, M. J., C. L. Danube, and S. A. Shields, 2012: How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67, 605–616, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0181-z.
Zawadzki, M. J., S. A. Shields, C. L. Danube, and J. K. Swim, 2014: Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The workshop activity for gender equity simulation (WAGES). Psychol. Women Quart., 38, 75–92, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313498573.
