Building an inclusive wave in marine science: Sense of belonging and Society for Women in Marine Science symposia

Abstract

Achieving gender equity is a long-standing and ubiquitous challenge in marine science. Creating equitable experiences for all genders in marine science requires recognizing scientists' intersectional identities, and how this leads to unique lived experiences of privilege and marginalization. One approach to increase equitable experiences for women in marine science is to create affinity groups where women can learn from each other, share their experiences, and provide support and mentorship. The Society for Women in Marine Science (SWMS) is one such organization, founded to amplify the work of early career women in marine science and create community, through events such as full-day symposium events. This study investigates the experiences of symposium attendees for four events held from 2018 through 2020, as reported in pre- and post-symposium surveys. We used quantitative analysis of the open-ended survey questions to examine the demographics of attendees and their fields of study. Qualitative thematic analysis identified the most effective aspects of the symposia, areas of logistical and content improvement for future symposia, and emphasized the unique challenges women in marine science experience. The majority of symposium attendees were white graduate students. Nearly all attendees identified as women, with a small number of men and non-binary individuals. Symposia attendees enjoyed opportunities for professional development and interactions with colleagues across career stages. We present recommendations for continuing to foster a sense of belonging in marine science and STEM more broadly, both specific to SWMS and transferable actions that can be applied for other affinity groups. These suggestions include empathetic event logistics, continual democratic evaluation, identity reflexivity among group leaders, and professional development activities targeted towards the unique needs of the affinity group. The positive responses received from SWMS's adaptive integration of survey results into symposia demonstrate that incorporating these recommendations and findings will help create an inclusive wave in marine science.

Keywords: Affinity groups; Diversity; Early career; Equity; Gender identity; Symposium events; USA, Maryland, Cambridge; USA, Massachusetts, Woods Hole; USA, Rhode Island, Narragansett.

Fig. 1.. Number of SWMS symposia attended by event.

There were 301 responses to this question (not including the “No response” category). A response of “1st” indicates that the present symposium is the respondent’s first time attending a SWMS Symposium, “2nd” indicates that they have previously attended one symposium, and so on.

Fig. 2.. Age, gender, and job position demographics of respondents to pre-symposium surveys.

[A] Histogram of ages reported by respondents across all symposia (n = 351). [B] Gender as reported by all symposium respondents separated by age groups (n = 355; we include the individuals who declined to answer as “NA”). Age groups are not equal in size, in order to align with generalized career stages. [C] Job positions as proportion of responses by symposium (n = 354). Other responses included fellows, recent graduates, prospective graduate students, and unemployed individuals.

Fig. 3.. Fields and sub-fields of work and study of symposia survey respondents.

[A] Overall fields of study from the surveys (n = 344), and subfields within the two largest fields: [B] Biology, and [C] Oceanography. Proportions for the overall field of study were calculated by dividing the count of each field of study by the total number of responses for that symposium; because individuals could have multiple fields of study, the sum of proportions for each symposium can be ≥ 1. Proportions for sub-fields were calculated by dividing the count of each subfield by the total number of subfield answers for that symposium (within oceanography, biology); therefore the sum of proportions for biology (or oceanography) subfields for each symposium will be exactly 1. A few of the fields are abbreviated as follows: “Sci. Comm. & Ed.” = science communication and education, “Eng. & Tech.” = engineering and technology, and “Human-Env” = the study of human-environmental interactions including environmental studies and marine affairs. “Other” includes responses about coastal studies, aquatic toxicology, atmospheric science and climate, and the deep sea.

Fig. 4.. Pie chart of race and ethnicity demographic information of symposium respondents, NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, and the US 2020 Census.

In the top left panel, we show the race and ethnicity information for respondents across all symposia to pre-symposium surveys (n = 355). Race and ethnicity were captured in an open text field. We also show the race and ethnicity data from the 2019 NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, in the field of ocean and marine sciences (n = 269). The bottom pie chart shows the overall race and ethnicity data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the 2020 census for all 50 states and Puerto Rico (N = 334,735,155).

Fig. 5.

Responses to the prompt “What are your expectations for attending this SWMS symposium?” in the pre-survey (n = 235).

Fig. 6.. Feedback about the symposium from responses to “What elements did you like best about the symposium?” (n = 140).

Each response could be included in multiple categories.

Fig. 7.. Reactions to the virtual format used in the 2020 Symposium (n = 39).

Plus signs in the labels with light-colored bars indicate positive reactions and minus signs in the labels with dark-colored bars indicate negative reactions.

Fig. 8.. Recommendations from attendees for future symposia about logistics, content, personal experience.

Each response could be included in multiple categories. [A] Responses to the open-ended question “What do you think we should do differently at future SWMS Symposiums?” (n = 132) [B] Responses to the open-ended question “Were there any topics you would like to learn more about or that you felt were missing from the discussion?” (n = 141) [C] Responses to the open-ended question “What challenged you most?” (n = 142).

Fig. 9.. Perceived obstacles for women in marine science.

Responses to the question “Which different obstacles, if any, do women face in the marine science field?” (n = 259). Each response could be included in multiple categories.

Fig. 10.

Recommendations from lessons learned from SWMS Symposia.