The Field Experience as a Potential Barrier to Underrepresented Minority Student Participation in Ecological Sciences

Abstract

Field experiences become pivotal moments for many learners (i.e., students) in the environmental sciences (Lertzman 2002). The first introduction to a field setting for a student can range from a guided hike where students are introduced to the flora and fauna of an area, or as a team on a project outside the classroom; this can provide powerful motivators that encourage students to continue exploring the environmental sciences during their academic journey (Taylor 2018, Halliwell and Bowser 2019, Halliwell et al. 2020). However, field experiences can also demotivate, or dissuade learners from underrepresented minorities (URM) who, at times, have reported feeling isolated and discouraged from continuing in the ecological sciences (Haynes and Jacobson 2015, Hansen et al. 2018, Morales et al. 2020, Bowser and Cid 2021). Some factors that demotivate students from field experiences include financial burdens, lack of previous experience, and lack of racial/ethnic diversity within the environmental sciences. Underrepresentation is defined here in context with the National Science Foundation (NSF) annual report on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in the Sciences and identifies African American, Hispanic American, Native American, and Pacific Islanders as underrepresented in science disciplines in proportion to their representation in the US population (NSF 2019). Three theoretical frameworks informed professional development models for educators in the environmental sciences, suggested by the work of Freire (1970) on pedagogy, Santamaria and Santamaria (2013, 2015) on applied leadership, and Hurtado et al. (2012) on diverse learning environments. The models included recognizing the potential for learning about any biases among educators in a position of privilege, then interrupting power and place dynamics, and finally planning for implementation of strategies that support inclusion of underrepresented learners (hereafter referred to as URM students). Within this context, the role of place in the curriculum and pedagogy applied in field experiences is meant both literally, geospatially, or figuratively; field-based learning is similar to laboratory or classroom learning but in a different venue in which teaching and learning take place (Halliwell and Bowser 2019). Whereas most field experiences are in remote locations, they can also occur in rural, suburban, and urban places. Therefore, addressing place in terms of the perceptions of physical, personal, or emotional safety among URM students will be a critical element of an explanatory model (Nelson et al. 2017). The theoretical factors of power and privilege are evident during various field experiences in disciplines such as ecology or other earth and marine sciences (McCorkel and Myers 2003). The 5-P theoretical model, recognizing privilege, place, and power, focused on apparent moderators in the theoretical relationship between academic or educational leaders and learners in field experiences by strengthening or weakening the level of student motivation. By addressing the model interactions of recognition of potential and privilege along with interruption of power and place, the factors in the 5-P model include the following: (1) barriers to inclusion of URM students in field experiences; (2) awareness of cultural differences, between educators and URM students; (3) awareness of diversity and equity in curricular materials; and (4) prioritization of professional development in environmental sciences for URM students (Ewing 2001). The National Science Foundation (NSF) GEO Opportunities for Leadership in Diversity (GOLD) program was designed in 2016 to “develop a network of ‘champions’ who can catalyze widespread adoption of these evidence-based best practices and resources” (NSF 2016). The Fieldwork Inspiring Expanded Leadership and Diversity (FIELD) Project (Pagnac et al. 2017) explored implicit bias among faculty and administrators of field experience for students in field stations or informal settings (such as a camp). Following the initial FIELD project focused on the geosciences, an associated workshop and survey were conducted targeting faculty and administrator perspectives in the ecological disciplines and additionally explored the perspectives of faculty and administrators of field experiences in different geographical settings on potential access and inclusion issues for URM students participating in field experiences. The goals of the workshop included recognition of learning potential and educator privilege relative to cultural sensitivity and competence; interruption of power and place both relative to a social place of power as well as a physical or natural location for field experiences that may change the social dynamics. The target audience for the workshop and surveys was participants at the 2019 Ecological Society of America’s (ESA) Annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. The survey instrument reflected three themes including: (1) awareness and recognition of URM student potential and needs for inclusion; (2) identifying facets of privilege along continuums of ineffective, effective, and optimized learning outcomes that could benefit URM students during field experiences; and (3) recognizing cultural competency development for delivering programs and training opportunities that interrupt the influences of place and power during their field experiences. The surveys were administered in two separate activities: a 90-minute small-group session, and encounter surveys of conference participants conducted at the exhibit hall over two days. The survey was administered electronically using QualtricsXM software, with a paper version available onsite during the conference session (Survey sections and question details are in associated Appendix S1). The survey consisted of two parts; the first part included open-ended entrée type questions asking respondents to think about relevant activities they have participated in during their field experiences. Participants were prompted to briefly describe the extent to which they have incorporated the following topics in their field curriculum: diversity, inclusivity, environmental, and social justice and equity. In the second part, participants were asked to respond to a series of demographics and socioeconomic questions (e.g., position/rank, gender/sex, highest degree achieved) along with what geographical state their job is located. The pilot instrument was administered to attendees during a 90-minute session (n = 8 participants) and to a sample of conference attendees encountered in the Exhibit Hall (n = 44). The combined sample results (n = 52) were sufficient to run statistical procedures testing for homogeneity-of-variance, as well as skewness and kurtosis assumptions. Frequencies of survey items were computed and various groups (e.g., educators and students, men and women, living in southern US states [Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia] and non-southern states) were systematically compared according to the analysis plan. The scaled scores suggest not only the face validity of this instrument, but also suggest a reliable instrument as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (Tavakol and Dennick 2011). A reliability check using Cronbach’s alpha occurred for the four scaled items of the survey. As a general guide to reliability, and therefore replicability, a Cronbach’s alpha between 0.70 and 0.90 is considered good to very good. Respondents were majority white, female, researchers, and students in the environmental sciences. Frequencies of the demographics show the largest group of respondents was “researchers/scientists” and fewer educators than anticipated given the professional conference setting. The “other,” based on conversations at the conference and during survey administration, are assumed to be students (i.e., graduate or undergraduate). The demographics in this exploratory project appeared to have a moderating effect where interactions occurred with other demographic variables based on whether someone was an educational “leader” or a student “learner” hereafter referred to as student (note: post-docs were considered educational “leaders” in this analysis). Based on interaction analyses, variables included interactions with sex/identity, race, highest degree completed, or location (e.g., based on geography). In some cases, the demographic variables were collapsed, such as with the “position” of respondents, which was collapsed into three categories: educator, researcher, and student to streamline parts of the analyses. Given the location of the conference (Kentucky), most survey respondents indicated their job (and presumably their residence) was located in the southern United States, labeled “Dixie” (McPherson 2003, Bullard 2018). Because of this fact, the analysis plan used Dixie as a regional reference for southern states which were well represented in the same, with dichotomies framed in terms of Dixie vs. Not from Dixie following Bullard (2018). Educators from regions other than Dixie reported they do treat students the same while student scores outside from Not from Dixie tell the opposite story, where they do not feel like they are treated the same. One survey respondent stated that, “Fieldwork is the ‘traditional’ pathway into many jobs and minority students are systematically left out.” Another interaction effect is on the other end of the scale where students from southern regions (i.e., Dixie) believe and perceive they are treated the same while, in contrast, Educators from Dixie perceive they do not treat students the same. The following are the Cronbach’s alpha results for the four categories of scaled items: (1) Perceived barriers to inclusion in fieldwork presented as a rank order scale resulted in α = 0.89 (Table 1); (2) Perceived self-awareness in creating a more inclusive curriculum including field experiences presented as a semantic differential scale resulted in α = 0.79; (3) Perspective regarding field experience as a priority to increasing learners of color interest in science careers presented as a Likert-type scale reflected α = 0.88; and (4) Perspective regarding field experience as a priority to increasing learners of color interest in science careers as a Likert-type scale reflected α = 0.98. The analysis plan aggregated the location responses into geographic regions based on divisions described by Garreau (1981). There were 27 items total across the four categories, and because of various units of measure, the survey items were built around two Likert-type scales: (1) relating to how untrue or very true statements are about including diversity and equity topic in field experiences; and (2) relating to whether it is of a low or essential priority to increase interest in environmental careers among URM students. Two other measures included one positive and negative semantic differential scale relating to awareness of inclusive curriculum, and one rank order scale indicating awareness of lesser to greater barriers to inclusion. Furthermore, analyzing the items based on a series of lenses, such as looking from the perspective of three sample facets: (1) geographic region or place, (such as Dixie or Not from Dixie as discussed above), (2) student learner, researcher or faculty status, or power, and (3) combinations of categories as a proxy for privilege experienced by some women and men, could contribute to interpretations of the data. Analysis included comparing survey response from white male professors to female URM students, as well as comparing responses based on location (e.g., the state where field experience occurred). The importance of embedding career development modules into field experiences was similarly viewed across all geographical regions with an overall mean of 5.94. Seventy-three percent of respondents expressed a viewpoint for this as either high priority or essential for the future. When data were split, however, more people from Dixie (47%) rated career development as essential for the future of science vs. 34% of people from Not from Dixie. Regardless, people from Dixie were actually more polarized in their response to this item suggesting they believe this work is somewhat of a priority, neutral, or moderate in belief. When combined, all respondents from Dixie, broadly speaking, reported less awareness of resources (human/staff, equipment/gear, science tools, curriculum materials, and more) collectively, vs. people who were Not from Dixie. Dixie-based Educators as a distinct group, however, had higher levels of responses, suggesting Dixie Educators might have a greater level of self-awareness vs. Not from Dixie Educators. This finding is not statistically significant; however, a larger sample may find a noteworthy distinction during future data collection. The final item relating to lack of ability to inquire about culture was evaluated across all participants vs. splitting the sample into geographic regions. Participants were asked to rate themselves on a scale from “I lack the ability to respond to the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse groups” to “I often inquire about learners' culture and language in my field camps to be more responsive to their needs.” Responses show that no participants answered as lacking (score of 1) the ability, whereas most of the responses were above the middle (e.g., scores of 4, 5, or 6). However, when asked whether providing leadership experiences specifically for URM students in the field was a priority or not, the sentiment was very similar across all respondents. Nearly 2/3 of all people who filled out the survey (65%) believe this is either a high priority or essential for the future. Conversely, 35% indicated this was either a low priority, felt neutral about this, or moderate priority. Regional distinctions between respondents from the Southern United States (Dixie) vs. other regions (Not from Dixie) are most pronounced in terms of awareness that field practices may cause certain URM students to feel “marginalized” based on their diverse backgrounds or cultural group affiliations. Correlational analysis combined respondents into a larger grouping along with perceived barriers such as “Lack of belonging/social identity,” “Lack of diversity of instructors,” and “Don’t feel welcome/included.” Similarly, other barriers that clustered together included, “Racial stereotypes” and “Social perceptions of fieldwork” along with “Fear.” Finally, “Lack of outdoor experience” and “Lack of comfort” could be clustered together even though these two were ranked lower in the rankings. Regarding the perceived barriers question, the strongest explanatory weighting of barriers was being from Dixie. For the purpose of this analysis, the primary location of their current job was classified as their region. The geo-cultural aspects of people completing the survey were more prominent than other demographic characteristics such as sex, marital status, or education level. Students from Dixie are at the lower end of the spectrum, suggesting they feel less supported. Educators from Dixie, on the other hand, are at the higher end, believing they do support students in attempts to avoid marginalizing those from diverse backgrounds. Educators Not from Dixie reported they do not believe they are giving the level of support needed to avoid marginalizing diverse students (lower scores), yet students from outside of the southern regions have higher scores surmising they do feel supported. Perceptions of how someone is treated regarding diversity and inclusion varied based on an educator vs. a student perspective. This item prompted respondents to share whether they believe educational leaders “treat all students the same regardless of their background” or if they “acknowledge demographic differences.” Dixie respondents reflected a larger proportion of people who believe they are doing more to weave content into their field lessons about underrepresented groups in the sciences. One respondent noted that they “Have relayed information or have received information about understanding the importance of having diversity in the field of conservation. Topics such as gentrification and the correlation between poor environmental quality and low-income families have occurred when doing GID work and analyzing water, soil, and air quality data.” For other respondents, this included discussions at the beginning of the field session on diversity, inclusion, and social/environmental justice. Responses suggest that educational leaders from Dixie believe this at twice the rate (59%) of people Not from Dixie (31% from other states believe this to be “true” in some capacity). Instructor power/privilege provides a greater opportunity to reduce inequities and many students rated this issue as important in addressing bias in the field experiences. Whether respondents perceive they engage in “intentional and frequent self-reflection” to increase awareness about their students’ backgrounds, respondents from Dixie reported they engage in self-reflection more than people Not from Dixie (mean = 5.13). Dixie educators rated this the highest believing they do engage in this process (Fig. 1). Students from Dixie depicted a similar frequency of reporting at a level of intentional self-reflection. Researchers had the lowest score for this item (mean = 4.1). On the other end of the spectrum, more people responded at the upper end of the scale (n = 31) alluding to being more “fully aware” of their own knowledge/abilities to support learners across cultures and potentially seek to improve their skills (Fig. 2). Photo Credit: G. Bowser. Photo Credit: G. Bowser. When asked about whether they understand the value of examining curriculum materials for bias/unjust content, 71% of all respondents indicated that is true (44%) or very true (27%). The next item prompted people to respond to the notion of whether they know why lesson plans should embrace dynamics of power and, relatedly, if they feel it is true or untrue (for them) that their field curriculum perpetuates privilege and oppression of URM students (Fig. 3). Respondents from Dixie endorsed this item as very true regarding that their curriculum does not perpetuating power, privilege, and oppression in the field (47% Dixie vs. 23% people Not from Dixie). Photo credit: G. Bowser. Strategies for engaging URM students in the field experience have grounding in regional culture and histories. Observations beyond stereotype threat and implicit bias associated with environmental sciences and related field experiences maintained an apparent geographical distinction in the pattern of responses. Despite the small size, there were enough hints or clues in the data to suggest future avenues of investigation into the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of both educators and students in environmental sciences based in different geographical regions of the country that have distinct racial histories. The experiences of African American students in southern states, or Native American students in areas where their traditional lands were taken away, for example, are fundamentally different and influence that students’ sense of comfort or belonging in those different remote settings. Is there a best way to address challenges of cultural nuances and issues that surface during field experiences? Recruiting URM students to participate, improving curriculum of field experiences and breaking down barriers of power, rank, and privilege between educators and URM students are long-term efforts nationwide. Separating out the experiences of different cultural groups is an important consideration or conclusion of this study, where regional differences can mask or exacerbate feelings of power and privilege in ways that have different weights on different cultural groups, especially those with histories of oppression in different regions of the country. Ultimately, as URM students get more connected to the environmental sciences through field experiences with culturally sensitive curriculum designed to address the nuances of the complex racial histories in various regions of the United States, collective impact and cohesive efforts can, and will likely, lead toward improving the field experience for URM students and help diversifying the workforce in the environmental and earth sciences over time, and instructors need to understand the context of place along with power and privilege to make the field experience more inclusive. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Awards GEO-GOLD #1645456 and ICER #1941962. Thank you to the students who helped administer the survey: Luis Borrego, Esther Bourdon, Daniel Dominguez, and Angelina Rivera. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.