Search

Climate change is an ongoing topic in nearly all areas of society since many years. A discussion of climate change without referring to scientific results is not imaginable. This is especially the case for policies since action on the macro scale is required to avoid costly consequences for society. In this study, we deal with the question of how research on climate change and policy are connected. In 2019, the new Overton database of policy documents was released including links to research papers that are cited by policy documents. The use of results and recommendations from research on climate change might be reflected in citations of scientific papers in policy documents. Although we suspect a lot of uncertainty related to the coverage of policy documents in Overton, there seems to be an impact of international climate policy cycles on policy document publication. We observe local peaks in climate policy documents around major decisions in international climate diplomacy. Our results point out that IGOs and think tanks–with a focus on climate change–have published more climate change policy documents than expected. We found that climate change papers that are cited in climate change policy documents received significantly more citations on average than climate change papers that are not cited in these documents. Both areas of society (science and policy) focus on similar climate change research fields: biology, earth sciences, engineering, and disease sciences. Based on these and other empirical results in this study, we propose a simple model of policy impact considering a chain of different document types: The chain starts with scientific assessment reports (systematic reviews) that lead via science communication documents (policy briefs, policy reports or plain language summaries) and government reports to legislative documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undergraduate research experiences benefit students by immersing them in the work of scientists and often result in increased interest and commitment to careers in the sciences. Expanding access to Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) programs has the potential to engage more students in authentic research experiences earlier in their academic careers and grow and diversify the geoscience workforce. The Research Experience for Community College Students (RECCS) was one of the first National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded REU programs exclusively for 2-year college students. In this study, we describe findings from five years of the RECCS program and report on outcomes from 54 students. The study collected closed- and open-ended responses on post-program reflection surveys to analyze both student and mentor perspectives on their experience. Specifically, we focus on students' self-reported growth in areas such as research skills, confidence in their ability to do research, and belonging in the field, as well as the mentors' assessment of students' work and areas of growth, and the impact of the program on students' academic and career paths. In addition, RECCS alumni were surveyed annually to update data on their academic and career pursuits. Our data show that RECCS students learned scientific and professional skills throughout the program, developed a sense of identity as a scientist, and increased their interest in and excitement for graduate school after the program. Through this research experience, students gained confidence in their ability to "do" science and insight into whether this path is a good fit for them. This study contributes to an emerging body of data examining the impact of REU programs on community college students and encourages geoscience REU programs to welcome and support more community college students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rampant gender-based harassment and discrimination are recognized problems that negatively impact efforts to diversify science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. We explored the particularities of this phenomenon in the geosciences, via focus groups conducted at STEM professional society meetings, with the goal of informing interventions specific to the discipline. Using grounded theory analysis, two primary drivers for the persistence and perpetuation of gender-based harassment in the geosciences were identified: a particular history of power dynamics and maintenance of dominant stereotypes, and a pattern of ineffective responses to incidents of harassment and discrimination. Informed by intersectional feminist scholarship by women of color that illustrates how efforts to address the underrepresentation of women in STEM without attending to the overlapping impacts of racism, colonialism, ableism, and classism will not succeed, we view harassment and discrimination as structural problems that require collective solutions. Continuing to recruit individuals into a discipline without changing its fundamental nature can tokenize and isolate them or encourage assimilation and acceptance of deep-seated traditions no matter how damaging. It is the responsibility of those in power, and especially those who hold more privileged status due to their social identities, to contribute to the dismantling of current structures that reinforce inequity. By providing explanatory illustrative examples drawn from first-person accounts we aim to humanize the numbers reported in workplace climate surveys, address gaps in knowledge specific to the geosciences, and identify interventions aligned with an intersectional framework that aim to disrupt discriminatory practices endemic to the geosciences and larger STEM community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]