Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:55:45.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023

Sarah M. Hamylton Open the ORCID record for Sarah M. Hamylton [Opens in a new window] ,
Hannah E. Power ,
Shari L. Gallop  and
Ana Vila-Concejo Open the ORCID record for Ana Vila-Concejo [Opens in a new window]
Sarah M. Hamylton*
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Hannah E. Power
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
Shari L. Gallop
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Waikato, Waikato, New Zealand Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, Tauranga, New Zealand
Ana Vila-Concejo
Affiliation:
Geocoastal Research Group, Marine Studies Institute, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Sarah M. Hamylton; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Women face disproportionate challenges while undertaking coastal fieldwork. We draw on 18 responses that specifically raise fieldwork issues from an international survey about perceptions and experiences of gender inequality for those working in coastal sciences to discuss two common themes. These themes are barriers to fieldwork participation and challenges for women working in coastal field settings such as boats or working on beaches, including discrimination and sexual harassment. We suggest five priority behavioural and policy changes to improve the fieldwork experience for women in coastal sciences: (i) publicise field role models and trail blazers, (ii) improve opportunities and capacity for women to undertake fieldwork, (iii) establish field codes of conduct, (iv) acknowledge the challenges women face in the field and provide support where possible, and (v) foster an enjoyable and supportive fieldwork culture.

Topics structure

Topic(s)

EngineeringGeomorphologyMonitoring

Subtopic(s)

Coastal engineeringData collection, modelling and analysisEstuarine and intertidal morphodynamicsRemote sensing and GIS

Keywords

beachcoasthuman activitygender discriminationfieldworkfieldtrip
Type
Perspective
Information
Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures , Volume 1 , 2023 , e38
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

The specific challenges that women face while undertaking fieldwork in coastal environments are identified from a survey of 314 coastal scientists. These include difficulties getting into the field through selective invitations, competing responsibilities and lack of facilities for women at field sites and onboard scientific boats. Under representation in field settings, as well as reconfigured social boundaries, work environments and sleeping arrangements expose women to vulnerable situations, discrimination and sexual harassment. Suggestions for improvement include publicising women in the field as role models, improving opportunities for and the capacity for women to undertake fieldwork, establishing codes of behavioural conduct for the field, acknowledging challenges and providing specific support where possible and fostering an enjoyable and supportive fieldwork culture.

Introduction

Fieldwork provides a critical opportunity to gather environmental data, inspire emerging scientists, develop skills, expand networks and participate in collaborative research. Yet surveys reveal that many women experience disproportionate challenges in the field (Clancy et al., Reference Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford and Hinde2014). Surveys of coastal scientists and engineers reveal that the fieldwork-related challenges for women are multifaceted, including lack of fieldwork-active female role models, remote and urban coastal settings that are unsafe for women, limited capacity to participate in fieldtrips, gender stereotyping in the field and discriminatory assumptions about women’s ability to perform fieldwork tasks. These challenges can begin before reaching the field and can raise unique issues for women (Vila-Concejo et al., Reference Vila-Concejo, Gallop, Hamylton, Esteves, Bryan, Delgado-Fernandez, Guisado-Pintado, Joshi, Da Silva, Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu and Power2018; Adams et al., Reference Adams, Whitfield and Van Niekerk2020; Clair, Reference Clair2021).

The last few years have seen an increased awareness of the challenges that women field scientists face, with corresponding efforts to understand and address women’s experiences of fieldwork in ocean and coastal sciences (Brooks and Déniz-González, Reference Brooks and Déniz-González2021; Hill et al., Reference Hill, Jacquemart, Gold and Tiampo2021; Kelly and Yarincik, Reference Kelly and Yarincik2021). The present paper draws on survey results from the Women in Coastal Geosciences and Engineering (WICGE) network to consolidate issues experienced by women specifically undertaking coastal fieldwork into two themes for further discussion. These two themes are (i) barriers to fieldwork participation (envisaging the possibility of fieldwork, opportunities for inclusion in fieldtrips), and (ii) specific challenges for women in a coastal setting. We conclude by outlining five practical suggestions for improving the fieldwork experience for women in coastal sciences.

Approach

We present responses from an international survey about perceptions and experiences of gender inequality for those working in coastal sciences. A paper-based survey was initially launched during the 14th International Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia in March 2016). Further responses were solicited via an online questionnaire that was posted on the WICGE website and circulated through social media channels to assess experiences of gender equality for those working in coastal sciences (Vila-Concejo et al., Reference Vila-Concejo, Gallop, Hamylton, Esteves, Bryan, Delgado-Fernandez, Guisado-Pintado, Joshi, Da Silva, Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu and Power2018). Here, we draw on a subset of survey responses pertaining to issues faced while undertaking fieldwork to frame a discussion of the emerging issues faced by women undertaking fieldwork in coastal sciences. Specifically, all survey responses were evaluated and answers were extracted that mentioned issues relating to fieldwork in response to the question: “If you are willing to do so, please provide a short description of the gender inequality you have directly experienced or observed while working as a coastal geoscientist and/ or engineer”.

To protect the welfare and rights of all research participants, the questionnaire and associated materials were assessed for integrity by the Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Wollongong. The full questionnaire and responses were deposited in the Dataverse repository (doi: 10.7910/DVN/F1B2FS).

Synthesis

The survey yielded 314 responses overall (34% male, 65% female and 1% other). Over 95% of these respondents were coastal geoscience and engineering (CGE) professionals working as university researchers, government scientists and industry consultants. Of the 314 responses received, 113 respondents provided examples of gender inequality that they had either directly experienced or observed while working in coastal sciences. Overall, 36% of survey respondents therefore supplied examples of gender inequality that they had experienced or observed and within these responses and 16% of overall respondents provided examples that related to fieldwork. Box 1 outlines direct quotes from 18 respondents regarding fieldwork-related issues that emerged when participants were asked to describe gender inequality experienced while working in coastal sciences.

Box 1. Issues faced by survey respondents while undertaking fieldwork.

If you are willing to do so, please provide a short description of the gender inequality that you have directly experienced or observed while working as a coastal geoscientist and / or engineer.

  • • Colleagues preferring men over women in allocation of tasks ranging from fieldwork through to management (man, senior career, university researcher).

  • • Sometimes women are “advised” to avoid field works, for security reasons (or they are considered weak, or we are threaten by rape for being with a lot of men) (woman, early career, university researcher).

  • • I was told that a male colleague would be better to coordinate and lead a fieldtrip (woman, early career, university researcher).

  • • As I fill in this survey, the corridor of the building I work in is lined with empty offices. My colleagues are out on boats doing fieldwork. I have a passion for coastal science. That’s why I’m working in a university. But I have a disproportionately large share of administrative, pastoral and governance duties that keep me from engaging in my passion. I’m about to go to a committee meeting of women, doing women’s work (reviewing teaching offerings). Inequality is alive and well in my workplace! (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • I’ve twice experienced harassment on fieldwork expeditions (woman, early career, university researcher).

  • • During a field campaign I was treated inequal compared to male colleagues by one of the team members. He tried to be helpful by doing jobs that he deemed too hard (in terms of lifting equipment) for me, but it was very irritating (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • Inability to do field work because of religious values, no women on boats during Ramadan (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • Not allowed to join research vessels (woman, early career, research institute).

  • • Only woman doing fieldwork. Never worked for a female boss. Rarely worked with female peers. When applying for an internal role that involved travel told by a male “why would a mother want to apply for a role that involves travel”? Lack of role models/mentors/peers/female colleagues (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • Prevented from research in the field because of gender (woman, mid-career, government).

  • • During fieldwork, as a woman, I am not included in tasks that are considered more male oriented like heavy lifting or being helpful while deploying instruments. I try to make myself included but I keep getting passed over for the nearest male (whom is not closer than me) (woman, early career, government).

  • • For physical disparity field capacity (carrying heavy loads, prejudices) (woman, mid-career, other).

  • • Opportunities to participate in field work have preferentially been given to men (woman, early career, government).

  • • Inequality is inherent as we have to care for our family. Having had three children in the last 3 years, I had to go on maternity leave, which slowed down by publishing, and I haven’t been able to go on fieldwork, cruises or even conferences. However, it was my decision to have kids and I knew what the result would be. Men stay more free, even when they have kids, but it’s not their fault! (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • Being asked to help with outreach on a field experiment rather than setup of equipment, having setup of field equipment checked more frequently that it was done correctly than male counterparts (woman, early career, university researcher).

  • • Many examples I’ve seen (and I’m male!), here are a few (and none are exaggerated). (1) Saying we can only appoint males to field roles as women are too weak to pick stuff up. (2) Having staff expect their female students to act as baby sitters (male students are never asked). (3) Female students being told “you can only leave my supervision if you become a lesbian” (4) obvious misogyny at conferences – for example, [Name of senior Professor]’s use of a female swimsuit model to give examples of different beach modelling approaches (a highly embarrassing, but not unexpected thing to have been said). (5) Not account taken of child rearing in appointments panels. (6) Numerous comments on female students looks (7) females only been selected for short listing to make it look like it is gender balanced, with no intention of them being appointed. “We need an extra woman on this list for the Faculty” (8) staff yelling “I want to be an amateur gynaecologist” as female students hand in assignments (man, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • I have also observed female students and staff being left out of field experience for “not being strong enough” (man, senior career, university researcher).

  • • I have experienced inequality in a very direct, blatant manner – for example, I was banned from a fieldtrip to collect information at one of PhD research sites in Saudi Arabia. I have had my ideas ignored in meetings (then subsequently listened to when repeated by male colleagues). Probably, the starkest inequality I have experienced is that I am not able to work the same (extended) hours or conduct fieldwork in the same manner as my male colleagues while managing a family at home (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

  • • When field work includes a boat travels (woman, mid-career, university researcher).

These responses highlight two common themes, which we discuss below: (i) barriers to fieldwork participation (envisaging the possibility of fieldwork, opportunities for inclusion in fieldtrips), and (ii) challenges in the field (sexual harassment and specific challenges for women in a coastal setting).

Women face barriers to participation in fieldtrips. Their fieldwork abilities are commonly underrated and women undergraduate university students are less likely to consider themselves fit for fieldwork (Maguire, Reference Maguire1998). Such beliefs can be shaped by symbolic portrayals in magazines, online videos, on social media and in degree promotional brochures that disproportionately depict coastal scientists as being white, physically fit males. Such portrayals signal to those outside the profession what is possible in the field and a lack of visible role models makes it difficult for those falling outside this narrow remit to envision themselves as coastal scientists (Mol and Atchison, Reference Mol and Atchison2019).

Women’s participation in coastal fieldtrips may be prevented via outright bans of women joining trips or being allowed on scientific cruises, selective invitations or competing responsibilities. These responsibilities might include a disproportionate share of academic teaching and governance work in an educational institution, or caring for children and elderly family members at home, all of which often fall onto the shoulders of women, precluding participation in extended fieldtrips (Vila-Concejo et al., Reference Vila-Concejo, Gallop, Hamylton, Esteves, Bryan, Delgado-Fernandez, Guisado-Pintado, Joshi, Da Silva, Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu and Power2018).

Coastal field settings raise unique challenges for women. For example, women typically represent a very small proportion of people working from boats or in remote field camps, where personal space is reduced and fieldworkers can be required to sleep in close proximity, potentially exposing women to vulnerable situations. Women can face inadequate facilities at sea for toileting, managing menstruation or lactation (Orcutt and Cetinić, Reference Orcutt and Cetinić2014). While women are in the minority and the social boundaries that characterise everyday working life are reconfigured (e.g. when working from a boat), women coastal scientists are at greater exposure to microaggressions, discrimination, abuse and sexual harassment. Fieldwork attire for working around water such as close-fitting wetsuits and swimsuits may increase the likelihood of womens’ bodies being objectified by colleagues. Further, the interconnected nature of multiple aspects of identity including race, religion, class and sexuality, can create overlapping and intersectional disadvantages for fieldwork-active women (Núñez et al., Reference Núñez, Rivera and Hallmark2020), which are beyond the scope of the current analysis.

Suggestions for improvement

Changes must be made to improve the field experience for women. Recent workshops and reports have advanced our appreciation of the scope and diversity of issues faced, leading to recommendations for addressing these issues at institutional and individual levels (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Widnall and Benya2018; Kelly, Reference Kelly and Yarincik2021). There have been steps forward in relation to codes of conduct that outline acceptable behaviour, are integrated into relevant existing departments, policies and procedures (e.g., fieldwork safety guidelines and bystander training for witnesses of sexual assault) and provide reporting structures to facilitate resolution of complaints. These are becoming more common in fieldwork-active institutions such as engineering and environmental consultancies, research groups and universities (see the Royal Geographical Society’s webpage on principles for safe, responsible and ethical fieldwork for illustrative codes of conduct at https://www.rgs.org/research/higher-education-resources/fieldprinciple3/). Such codes inspire a welcoming and supportive behavioural culture in the field and encourage those experiencing challenges to speak up.

To encourage best practice in future coastal research, we suggest five priority behavioural and policy changes to improve the fieldwork experience for women in coastal sciences:

  1. 1. Publicise field role models and trail blazers: Fieldtrip leaders and others promoting fieldwork should develop representational material to reshape public views of coastal scientists in the field, emphasising fieldwork possibilities for women by increasing the visibility of their participation and offering counter-narratives to address gendered stereotypes (e.g., Figure 1).

  2. 2. Improve opportunities and capacity for women to undertake fieldwork: Trip organisers should strive for diverse field teams by identifying and addressing the intersecting disadvantages experienced by women. This may include, for example, making provision for other responsibilities that arise during the period of fieldwork, including professional duties and family-related care.

  3. 3. Establish field codes of conduct: Fieldwork codes should outline acceptable standards of behaviour on fieldtrips, what constitutes misconduct, sexual harassment and assault, how to make a complaint and disciplinary measures in the event of misconduct.

  4. 4. Acknowledge the challenges women face in the field and provide support where possible: Prior to entering the field, fieldwork leaders should include a briefing for all participants that explicitly acknowledges practical challenges that may arise for women in remote locations and outlines how these have been addressed, including managing toileting and menstruation with the provision of pop-up toilet facilities, private areas or breaks where possible.

  5. 5. Foster an enjoyable and supportive fieldwork culture: Emphasize mutual respect, safety, inclusivity and collegiality on every fieldtrip. Regularly check in on the welfare of members of the field team individually, providing the means for fieldworkers to communicate with family, such as via satellite phones with pre-agreed usage agreements negotiated on a case by case basis, while working in the field (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Sampson and Zhao2003).

    Figure 1. Disrupting the narrative: Women fieldworkers operating equipment, carrying gear and fixing engines.

By discussing some of the challenges faced by women coastal scientists and offering suggestions to address these, we hope to provoke constructive conversations that improve the fieldwork experience for women, both in coastal settings and across the broader geosciences.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.

Data availability statement

A copy of the survey is outlined in Table S4 in the Supplementary information of Vila Concejo et al. (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1057%2Fs41599-018-0154-0/MediaObjects/41599_2018_154_MOESM1_ESM.docx). Survey responses were deposited in the Harvard Dataverse repository (see https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/F1B2FS).

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge that the challenges women face in the field involve intersecting aspects of identity including, but not limited to, race, religion, class, sexuality and gender identity. A detailed discussion of each of these components of identity is beyond the scope of the current paper. We thank all who responded to the WICGE survey. This work would not have been possible without the work of the WICGE Committee, including Karin Bryan, Luciana Esteves, Graziela Miot da Silva, Amaia Ruiz de Alegria Arzaburu, Nadia Senechal, Emilia Guisado, Irene Delgado-Fernandez, Kristen Splinter, Naomi Edwards, Siddhi Joshi, Astrid Blom and Rose Palermo.

Author contribution

All authors contributed to project design and gathering of primary data of coastal sciences professionals, discussion of data analysis and writing this paper. S.H. drafted the paper. H.P., S.G. and A.V.C. helped to author the paper, including reviewing field challenges specific to coastal sciences and devising suggestions for improvement.

Financial support

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

The authors declare no competing interests exist.

Ethics statement

The survey was approved by the University of Wollongong Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Number 2016/052).

References

Adams, JB, Whitfield, AK and Van Niekerk, L (2020) A socio-ecological systems approach towards future research for the restoration, conservation and management of southern African estuaries. African Journal of Aquatic Science 45, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, LA and Déniz-González, IJP (2021) An apercu of the current status of women in ocean science. Pure and Applied Chemistry 93(8), 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clair, MS (2021) Sexual Harassment in Marine Science. Women in Ocean Science, C.I.C. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/MadelineStClair2/publication/363893558_Sexual_Harassment_in_Marine_Science/links/63343aad9cb4fe44f3e67bfb/Sexual-Harassment-in-Marine-Science.pdf (accessed 29 September 2023).Google Scholar
Clancy, KB, Nelson, RG, Rutherford, JN and Hinde, KJ (2014) Survey of academic field experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS One 9, e102172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, AF, Jacquemart, M, Gold, AU and Tiampo, K. (2021) Changing the culture of fieldwork in the geosciences. Eos 102, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, PA, Widnall, SE and Benya, FF (2018) Sexual Harassment of Women. Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. The National Academies Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, A and Yarincik, K (2021) Report of the workshop to promote safety in field sciences. In Workshop to Promote Safety in Field Sciences (SIFS), Consortium for Ocean Leadership. Available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5841983 (accessed 24 March 2021) (Vol. 5604956).Google Scholar
Maguire, SJA (1998) Gender differences in attitudes to undergraduate fieldwork. Area 30, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, L and Atchison, C (2019) Image is everything: Educator awareness of perceived barriers for students with physical disabilities in geoscience degree programs. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 43, 544–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, AM, Rivera, J and Hallmark, T (2020) Applying an intersectionality lens to expand equity in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education 68, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orcutt, BN and Cetinić, IJ (2014) Women in oceanography: Continuing challenges. Oceanography 27, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M, Sampson, H and Zhao, M (2003) Finding a balance: Companies, seafarers and family life. Maritime Policy and Management 30, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vila-Concejo, A, Gallop, SL, Hamylton, SM, Esteves, LS, Bryan, KR, Delgado-Fernandez, I, Guisado-Pintado, E, Joshi, S, Da Silva, GM, Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu, A and Power, HE (2018) Steps to improve gender diversity in coastal geoscience and engineering. Palgrave Communications 4, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Disrupting the narrative: Women fieldworkers operating equipment, carrying gear and fixing engines.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr1 [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Hamylton [Opens in a new window] Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia
Revision round: 0
Role: author

Comments

See correspondence with Jess Jones and Professor Tom Spencer

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr2 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_1
Date of review:  29 June 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: major-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I would like to commend the authors on tackling and publishing on this topic. I highly agree that it is important to study the challenges that women face in coastal field work and I agree with many of the suggestions and comments stated. Nevertheless, I recommend major revisions. This recommendation is based on the following concerns:

- Quotes and survey results were extracted from a subset of responses. It is unclear how this subset was chosen and is defined, and if bias is introduced through it.

- From the current manuscript, it is not possible to assess how representative the results are of the community as a whole, and are there also positive examples for programs, investments, and improvement? I understand that the discussed issues should not occur at all, but this question is relevant since it also provides a measure of if solutions or improvements are in place in parts of the community and how they specifically could look like.

- Recommendations are very general and maybe not surprising. A great contribution would be to discuss actual guidelines. For example, the example of the satellite phone is mentioned, but I believe many and most expeditions will carry this technology with them to-date. The bigger question is what is a usage agreement that is reasonable and appropriate: should there be one rule or case-by-case agreements? how would they look like? And how is access managed? Another example is related to boat facilities. How can this be added if at the same time vessels may be restricted in size for accessibility of sites? Or should there be a maximum time on vessel before landing with access to facilities are provided? Many of these solutions will take significant financial investments that will unlikely happen within a short time or maybe at all. What can be solutions in the mean time? What are acceptable improvements?

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr3 [Opens in a new window]
Janine Adams [Opens in a new window] Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
Date of review:  02 July 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Authors: Hamylton, Power, Gallop, Vila-Concejo

The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences.

This is an important, timely contribution that investigates the fieldwork experiences for woman in coastal sciences. Inputs were provided from participants of the 14th International Coastal Symposium and from a questionnaire posted on the Women In Coastal Geosciences and Engineering website (total of 314 responses). The suggestions for improvement are well described based on the study surveys, recent workshops and reports. This perspective article is well written, and I only found two typos i.e. Line 11, challenges, no caps and Line 88, others.

The authors acknowledge that “the challenges women face in the field involve intersecting aspects of identity including, but not limited to, race, religion, class, sexuality and gender identity.” A limitation of this study is that no details were provided on this in the article; of the 314 responses how many different countries were represented, how many different races, religions?

In South Africa, we have safety and security issues and for coastal field work we prefer a male present. Rape and murder are a threat in several urban as well as remote areas resulting in us no longer sampling some estuary sites or abandoning night zooplankton sampling because too dangerous. “Threats to a vibrant research community include a paucity of local funding and growing safety issues for field ecologists. Safety of field researchers is a particular problem in KwaZulu-Natal, but also in urban environments around the coast, with research and monitoring activities having been curtailed in some areas”. (Adams et al. 2020, DOI: 10.2989/16085914.2020.1751980).

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr4 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_2
Date of review:  10 July 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

The primary author is a colleague at University of Wollongong. We are working on a research project funded by the Australian Research Council focussed on mangrove sustainability in Australia. We have co-authored a manuscript that is currently in review. The topic of this manuscript does not overlap with the work I undertake with Sarah Hamylton and I do not anticipate that there will be any bias provided in my review because of this association.

Comments

I enjoyed reading this commentary on a survey undertaken by WICGE. However, the importance of this paper extends beyond my enjoyment - it is critical that discussions of women undertaking coastal fieldwork be discussed with a broader audience than women if change is to occur. And this change is crucial given the growing contribution of women to coastal geoscience and engineering.

Below I have outlined some suggestions that may improve the manuscript:

1. The manuscript is written in the traditional scientific format (intro, methods, results and discussion), and I found that this left me wanting to see what analyses of the survey were being undertaken. In addition, the methods did not detail the survey questions that preceeded the opportunity to comment. Personally - I do not think this is problemmatic as the survey comments should be made publicly available, but to manage reader expectations I think it would be better to present the paper as a commentary rather than in the traditional scientific paper format. I suggest that the best way to address this is to change the headings (e.g. Methods --> Approach, Results and discissions ---> Synthesis). I acknowledge that the capacity to adjust headings may be dependent on the author guidelines for this journal.

2. As the paper is focussed on fieldwork experiences in coastal research, I would have liked to see either more connection to the existing literature regarding fieldwork in geosciences (there is a lot of information emerging), and/or more explicit discussion about why women undertaking coastal fieldwork may need attention beyond what is undertaken more broadly in the field disciplines of geoscience and engineering. I suspect that the latter is more suited to this journal. I am aware that there are hints at this in the comments (e.g. boating, heavy equipment). I can see this being addressed with an additional couple of sentences in the introduction that includes citations to the existing research on geoscience fieldwork, and emphasising that the survey results allow for the unique experiences in coastal research to be highlighted.

3. The authors have provided a great list of suggestions, but I suggest linking through to some of the existing ‘good’ examples of codes of conduct (there are a few already available online). The Times higher Education did a great article on this a few years ago on this topic (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-develop-code-conduct-ethical-research-fieldwork).

4. I was a bit rankled reading that ‘women should be briefed on practical challenges that may arise’. From experience, women are often more aware than men of the challenges of remote fieldwork, and I suspect men may need some briefing. This could be as simple as developing approaches for toileting (where, frequency, no-questions asked) that is shared with everyone, emphasising inclusive conduct on boats and when using heavy equipment that is conveyed to everyone.

Line 88: ‘other’ should be changed to ‘others’

Thanks for the opportunity to read this manuscript - it was insighful.

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr5 [Opens in a new window]
Kristen Splinter [Opens in a new window] School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW, Australia
Date of review:  13 July 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this Perspective piece to Coastal Futures. As you can see, you have received three reviews on the submission, all of which are very favourable of your work but also raise some points I would like you to consider. More transparency/detail on the data used would be quite helpful, and 2 reviewers also suggested that discussing what is already in place/codes/etc would also be good and I’d tend to agree.

I appreciate you might be quite limited by space, but perhaps this is something that can be discussed as I think it’s important to add that bit of depth to this work to increase its impact even more.

I look forward to the revised version.

Kristen Splinter

Handling Senior Editor, Coastal Futures

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr6 [Opens in a new window]
Tom Spencer [Opens in a new window] Geography, Cambridge University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 0
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr7 [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Hamylton [Opens in a new window] Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia
Revision round: 1
Role: author

Comments

See response to editors and reviewers

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr8 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_2
Date of review:  07 August 2023
Revision round: 1
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

I am at the same institution as the lead author and we are involved in various publications and grants. However, I can confirm that this has not influenced my review and feel that I provdied a fair assessment that reflected my lived experiences of being a female in the discipline.

Comments

I appreciated the work presented in this paper. The authors have also taken care to address my suggestions and comments. I can also see that the authros ahve addressed otehr reviewer comments and the paper has now been improved in a waythat reflects my previous suggestion of ‘minor revisions’. I am very happy with how the authros addressed all reviewer comments.

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr9 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_1
Date of review:  15 August 2023
Revision round: 1
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I would like to thank the authors for the revisions. I believe most of my previously stated questions and concerns have been addressed. One question remains for me that may also be of interest to other readers: Of the 314 overall responses, do the 17 respondents represented in Box 1 represent all responses to this question (ie, 297 respondents did not provide a short description of the gender inequality experienced/observed) or is this a selection? Would this suggest that 5% of the respondents are willing/able to share experiences of gender inequality in coastal field work, and if not, how many of the total respondents reported having experienced/observed gender inequality during coastal field work?

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr10 [Opens in a new window]
Kristen Splinter [Opens in a new window] School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW, Australia
Date of review:  23 August 2023
Revision round: 1
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Comments

R2 has asked for I think a very interesting clarification if it would be great to address this before considering the paper for publication.

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr11 [Opens in a new window]
Tom Spencer [Opens in a new window] Geography, Cambridge University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 1
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR12

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr12 [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Hamylton [Opens in a new window] Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia
Revision round: 2
Role: author

Comments

See response to decision letter. Many thanks for you efforts in handling this paper.

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR13

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr13 [Opens in a new window]
Reviewer_1
Date of review:  13 September 2023
Revision round: 2
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: accept

Conflict of interest statement

N/A

Comments

Thank you. I believe my comments have been well addressed.

Thank you for tackling this important topic.

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR14

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr14 [Opens in a new window]
Kristen Splinter [Opens in a new window] School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW, Australia
Date of review:  14 September 2023
Revision round: 2
Role: Handling Editor
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

I think the paper is a worthy contribution to the conversation on gender equity within the Coastal field and should be published. I noted a few sentences in my final reading that could use your attention I feel.

L60: “ Specifically, all survey responses were evaluated we extracted any answers that mentioned issues” - there is something missing in this sentence.

L76: “ 18 respondents regarding fieldwork-related issues that emerged from seventeen responses” - is it 18 or 17 or am I missing something?

Thanks kindly,

Kristen Splinter

Senior Editor, Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures.

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR15

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.26.pr15 [Opens in a new window]
Tom Spencer [Opens in a new window] Geography, Cambridge University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 2
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

No accompanying comment.