Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “gender equity”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Nonbinary Systems: Looking Towards the Future of Gender Equity in Planetary Science

Gender equity remains a major issue facing the field of planetary science, and there is broad interest in addressing gender disparities within space science and related disciplines. Many studies of these topics have been performed by professional planetary scientists who are relatively unfamiliar with research in fields such as gender studies and sociology. As a result, they adopt a normative view of gender as a binary choice of ‘male’ or ‘female,’ leaving planetary scientists whose genders do not fit within that model out of such research entirely. Reductive frameworks of gender and an overemphasis on quantification as an indicator of gendered phenomena are harmful to people of marginalized genders, especially those who live at the intersections of multiple axes of marginalization such as race, disability, and socioeconomic status. In order for the planetary science community to best serve its marginalized members as we move into the next decade, a new paradigm must be established. This paper aims to address the future of gender equity in planetary science by recommending better survey practices and institutional policies based on a more profound approach to gender.

Beck E Strauss↗
NASA NTRS2021

A Short Glossary of Inclusive Language

Words matter—that old adage that many of us may have heard as children, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, is a harmful fallacy. In reality, the language we use has tremendous power to alienate, exclude, deride, humiliate, and wound. On the other hand, thoughtful use of language can signal openness, inclusivity, admiration, and celebration, or simply be an expression of empathy and care for our fellow humans. As part of The Oceanography Society (TOS) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee’s series of columns in Oceanography, here we provide a glossary of terms that are often used while discussing topics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It should be explicitly stated that this list is neither definitive nor exhaustive. Indeed, the terms included here are likely heavily influenced by the authors’ own lived experiences and the lenses through which we see the world. Language is a living entity, a fluid social construct subject to rapid changes and overlaid with regional nuances. Indeed, what may be accurate and acceptable terminology for one person may be entirely unacceptable for another. Keeping this in mind, the following glossary is an attempt to group together some of the acronyms and phrases that are most commonly used today in social justice studies and bodies of work and that may have particular relevance to our community of ocean-related scientists, technologists, and stakeholders. We have borrowed heavily from a wide range of excellent existing scholarship and activism and have cited all sources used. We encourage the reader to follow the links to these multimedia resources and, perhaps, use them as teaching and discussion materials with your students, colleagues, and mentees. Finally, it is our hope that this glossary, along with the links provided to more comprehensive definitions and discussions, helps to define terms that you may have heard used, but not understood, and that it will serve to remind us of the power of the words we use in our everyday professional and personal lives. We begin by defining the very words that form the name of our committee: Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI)

Susanne E. Craig↗
NASA NTRS2022

Gender Diversity in Heliophysics

Science is conducted by people. When those people do not feel safe in their workplace, they will struggle to produce quality science. The American scientific community has traditionally been dominated by cisgender white men–cisgender meaning that their gender aligns with the one assigned to them at birth. Individuals who are not part of this dominant demographic group have historically been excluded from scientific debate. However, the demographic landscape is changing rapidly [e.g., Jones (2022)], and organizations must ensure early career scientists of all identities feel accepted so they can achieve their goals in the field. Heliophysics describes the confluence and interaction of historically delineated scientific disciplines, including plasma, solar, and space physics. The scientific architecture of our field is founded on collaboration between people with diverse interests, backgrounds, skill sets, and ways of approaching problems. It should follow that the cohort of heliophysicists is at least as diverse as our research problems. A framing often referred to as “the business case” for diversity holds that perspectives different than our own enrich the ways in which we solve problems and communicates the positive outcomes for diverse working groups Starck et al. (2021). However, this rationale is insufficient in scope and uncompassionate in motivation; the safety of marginalized individuals is just as important as the achievements of a group. From the expectations that marginalized people outperform in order to prove themselves to the tokenization of their inclusion in an otherwise normative space, the “business case” for diversity is often harmful to historically marginalized individuals Haacker et al. (2022). The primary motivation for a diverse constituency of heliophysicists ought to be equity. Only by accepting the authentic selves of our fellow heliophysicists can we create an environment in which they have the mental and emotional safety necessary to do their best work. This white paper focuses on a particular axis of identity which the authors believe lacks visibility within heliophysics: gender expansion. It begins with definitions, explains the current landscape, and suggests actions toward a better future. The authors seek to shed light on these issues so that we can work together as a community to create a more inclusive, safe, and welcoming space for people of all identities.

M. Kenny↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Diversity and Inclusion in Spacecraft Science Teams: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

Introduction: Not only does the planetary science community lack diversity [1-3], the subset of the community that participates on spacecraft science team is even less diverse than the community as a whole [1, 4]. Results of 2020 Workforce Survey: Previous studies of the diversity of members of spacecraft science teams made incorrect assumptions about the nature of the data before collecting the data. Those analyses assumed a binary gender and ignored the existence of planetary scientists who are neither men nor women [4-6]. We present here results where demographic data was collected without assumptions; each individual surveyed supplied their own answers to demographic questions. The April 2020 survey of Planetary Scientists, which was conducted by the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and funded by the American Astronomical Society (AAS)’s Division of Planetary Science (DPS) asked participants their gender with 4 possible responses: Woman, Man, Another identify (please specify if you wish), and Prefer not to answer. 32% of respondents chose Woman, 67% chose Man and 1% chose Another gender identity [1]. The survey also asked demographic questions on race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ identity, and disability. For a full list of questions, see https://dps.aas.org/sites/dps.aas.org/files/reports/2020/survey2020_questionnaire.pdf. In addition to demographic questions, the 2020 Workforce survey asked how many times respondents had been involved in Mission proposals as a Principal Investigator (PI) and, separately, as a Co-Investigator (CoI) [1]. Answers to questions about mission involvement were correlated with answers to demographic questions and the results show that members of historically underrepresented groups (non-white scientists, women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled scientists) were less likely to be involved in spacecraft mission proposals than were members of historically overrepresented groups [1]. The figures below show the correlated responses for four different axes of underrepresentation [1]. Note that while the figure on gender shows only Women and Men (due to the small percentage of folks answering “Another gender”), non-binary respondents are included in the LGBTQ+ community figure. Conclusion: Being part of a spacecraft science team is a goal for many planetary scientists. With it comes brand new data, more stable funding, and a sense of awe and exploration. It can lead to a cascade of opportunities from conference and public presentations, to membership in subsequent mission teams, and prestige in the community [4]. As a result, participation in spacecraft teams can be used a measure of success within the field. From the survey results, we see that members of historically excluded groups, even after they have overcome barriers to participating in the field, are still experiencing barriers to success within the field itself. Why?: The diminishing percentage of members of underrepresented groups as a career progresses has been referred to as a “leaky pipeline”. However, this fails to adequately capture the experiences of the members of these underrepresented groups as it implies a passive process. In order to capture the active processes (bias, discrimination, harassment, and other exclusionary behaviors) that contribute to low retention in the workforce, the term “Hostile Obstacle Course” is more useful [7,8]. It is these processes that need to be addressed in order to retain valued members of our community. Moving Forward: In order to broaden participation in planetary science, particularly mission science teams, we need to address conditions that create hostile workplace climates. What can mission teams and other groups do to address these conditions? First, each group/team needs to evaluate their own members to determine what specific barriers exist in their own interactions. One tool to accomplish this would be an anonymous survey designed to understand how team members feel about working within the group. Working with professionals who know how to create and analyze such surveys (often called “climate surveys” when applied to University students, for example) would ensure that the survey meets its goals and does not make assumptions that counter the meaningfulness of the results. Such professionals in EDIA (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) and workplace culture can make suggestions for policy changes that would eliminate hostile workplace conditions. Policy changes that are often suggested include instituting professional EDIA training for the team and/or for team leadership, instituting and following a code of conduct [9], including more interactive group activities in group meetings, etc. Training and information on EDIA is available for all members of the planetary science community. The first place to look would be in your University or Institution’s EDIA or human resources offices. Bystander Intervention is often offered as part of other meetings [10]. A newer offering is a Workshop on EDIA for Leaders in Planetary Science led by Julie Rathbun (first author of this abstract) and JA Grier (https://edialps.psi.edu/). This 3-day workshop gives participants the tools they need to enact positive change in their personal and professional spheres. The first workshop was help in November 2022 and another workshop will take place in the late spring 2023 with exact dates to be announced soon.

J. A. Rathbun↗