Search

Diversifying curricula is of increasing interest in higher education, including in ecology and evolution and allied fields. Yet, many educators may not know where to start. Here we provide a framework for meeting standard curriculum goals while enacting anti‐racist and anti‐colonial syllabi that is grounded in the development of a sustainable network of educators. In addition to highlighting this professional learning process and sharing the list of resources our group has developed, we provide suggestions to help educators highlight contributions of minoritized groups, explore multiple ways of knowing, and perform critical assessments of foundational views of life and environmental science fields. We further discuss the key classroom dynamics that affect the success of such anti‐racist and anti‐colonial initiatives. The retention and success of minoritized students in ecology and evolution depends on whether we address injustices in our fields. Our hope is that our fellow educators will use this paper to catalyze their own efforts to diversify their courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we strive to lift up a diversity of voices in science, it is important for ecologists, evolutionary scientists, and educators to foster inclusive environments in their research and teaching. Academics in science often lack exposure to research on best practices in diversity, equity, and inclusion and may not know where to start to make scientific environments more welcoming and inclusive. We propose that by approaching research and teaching with empathy, flexibility, and a growth mind‐set, scientists can be more supportive and inclusive of their colleagues and students. This paper provides guidance, explores strategies, and directs scientists to resources to better cultivate an inclusive environment in three common settings: the classroom, the research laboratory, and the field. As ecologists and evolutionary scientists, we have an opportunity to adapt our teaching and research practices in order to foster an inclusive educational ecosystem for students and colleagues alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the 'senior' author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of theory within ecology has changed dramatically in recent decades. Once primarily a source of qualitative conceptual framing, ecological theories and models are now often used to develop quantitative explanations of empirical patterns and to project future dynamics of specific ecological systems. In this essay, I recount my own experience of this transformation, in which accelerating computing power and the widespread incorporation of stochastic processes into ecological theory combined to create some novel integration of mathematical and statistical models. This stronger integration drives theory towards incorporating more biological realism, and I explore ways in which we can grapple with that realism to generate new general theoretical insights. This enhanced realism, in turn, may lead to frameworks for projecting ecological responses to anthropogenic change, which is, arguably, the central challenge for 21st-century ecology. In an era of big data and synthesis, ecologists are increasingly seeking to infer causality from observational data; but conventional biometry provides few tools for this project. This is a realm where theorists can and should play an important role, and I close by pointing towards some analytical and philosophical approaches developed in our sister discipline of economics that address this very problem. While I make no grand prognostications about the likely discoveries of ecological theory over the coming century, you will find in this essay a scattering of more or less far-fetched ideas that I, at least, think are interesting and (possibly) fruitful directions for our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]