.
Harassment, a field study
.
Science, including the fields of
ecology and evolution, must advocate a zero-tolerance policy towards harassment
and bullying. This means promoting safe workspaces in all contexts, and letting
go of the idea that fieldwork entails special circumstances.
Revelations
of harassment at the highest levels of Hollywood and the UK government in the
past month have led to increased personal and professional reflection across
all industries. Social media users have flocked to post #MeToo stories on
Facebook and Twitter, revealing the gamut of acts of harassment they have
experienced in their lives. Science is no exception to this, and scrutiny
reveals particular problems in the fields of ecology and evolution.
The
past few years have seen numerous news stories about senior figures in these
disciplines who have been accused by some of their colleagues and students of
multiple forms of intimidation, bullying and sexual harassment. At the same
time, there has been an increased awareness and understanding of how colleagues
and students may be exposed to vulnerable contexts through lack of oversight. A
recurring theme in this coverage is the challenges of fieldwork.
Social
media initiatives such as #PregnantInTheField and science educator Emily
Graslie’s call for public discussion of the taboos and challenges
surrounding menstruation have raised awareness of the particular
trials fieldwork can pose to women. But many challenges imposed by constraints
of the field, such as limited privacy, geographic isolation and a dependence on
others, can affect everyone. Yet ecology and evolution fields seem to prize
these ‘macho’ challenges almost as a badge of honour. Conferences echo with
anecdotes of the extremes researchers have gone to in order to retrieve the
season’s data: the stressful make-or-break deadlines; the isolation posed by remote
field sites; the topsy-turvy situation where work colleagues become living
companions for weeks or even months on end; the challenges of temporary field
accommodation to maintenance of personal hygiene. But during assertion of these
bragging rights, there may be limited awareness of the fact that these
constraints all contribute to creating contexts of increased personal
vulnerability. Complaints alleged against prominent Antarctic geologist David
Marchant by two of his former students, which Marchant denies, illustrate such
a context.
And,
of course, the field is not the only context of manufactured vulnerability: the
‘field mentality’ easily filters through to the department, the lab, or the
conference (which shares many similarities with the challenges of the field) as
still more reports reveal. Journalist Michael Balter has repeatedly
investigated parallel claims of sexual harassment leading from institution to
conference and back again, notably in the case of Brian Richmond, ex-curator of
human origins at the American Museum of Natural History, who is alleged to have
sexually assaulted a junior colleague in a hotel room while both were attending
the European Society for the Study of Human Evolution (ESHE)’s annual meeting
in 2014; allegations that Richmond denies. In reporting other claims, Balter
has suggested that new iterations of sexual harassment on the part of junior
colleagues may derive from exposure to a culture of such behaviour exhibited by
senior colleagues.
There
is evidence that the issue of harassment in ecology and evolution extends far
beyond these specific cases: a 2014 study of 666 field scientists1 found that 64% of survey participants had
experienced sexual harassment (defined as inappropriate or sexual remarks), and
20% experienced sexual assault (defined as sexual contact that was unwanted,
unconsenting, or where it was unsafe not to consent). Of those who experienced
sexual assault, only 23% reported it, and only 19% of those who reported it
were satisfied with the outcome of their report. When these acts occurred, the
victims were more likely to be women, and either junior colleagues or students.
The impact of these attacks may be long-lasting: Kathryn Clancy and co-authors
posited that the strain and stress of experiencing harassment and assault may
contribute to the ‘leaky pipeline’ phenomenon1, that is, the gradual loss of women from science,
technology, engineering and mathematics fields; their 2017 follow-up study2 confirmed this perception among victims
of historic harassment.
The
2017 study highlights the difficulty of establishing acceptable behavioural
norms in the absence of explicit and enforced policy, as well as the
overwhelming importance of such policies in fieldwork contexts: where codes of
conduct and expectations were not clearly established, understood and enforced,
there was a correlation with higher rates of sexual harassment2. It seems probable, although not tested
in that particular study, that a correlation would exist with other forms of
bullying and abuse as well. Appropriate information flow emerges as a key
criterion in creating safe workspaces—both senior staff and junior participants
need to understand and abide by regulations for them to be effective. In order
to combat contexts of vulnerability in which harassment and bullying can arise,
this information flow should extend from what is acceptable interpersonal
behaviour, to what are reasonable expectations for junior and senior
fieldworkers alike in constrained circumstances: provision of a rota for meal
preparation; discussion of appropriate noise levels at night; and access to
sufficient food, water and breaks during strenuous or restrictive activity, for
example.
The
good news is that codes of conduct for acceptable behaviour, and provision of
reporting structures to facilitate resolution of complaints, are on the rise in
scientific contexts, although admittedly more so at conferences than for
fieldwork. Following calls from researchers, for example ref. 3, many conferences and societies now issue
codes of conduct for meetings (see the Ecological Society of America’s policy, for
instance). ESHE
now provisions ombudspersons to whom incidents (both harassment and
other forms of inappropriate behaviour) can be reported. By constituting an
independent body outside a university department or conference organizational
committee, ombudspersons help to combat the recognized challenge that a victim
may be wary to report an incident perpetrated by a senior colleague. It’s to be
hoped too that growing awareness of not only historic incidents but also
formerly taboo subjects, such as the personal challenges of fieldwork, may
empower victims to speak up. The ecology and evolution communities must
continue speak out about these issues and these incidents, calling out
colleagues when we witness bullying or harassment.
As
for combatting the structures that have facilitated harassment and bullying, as
Clancy et al. suggest, it’s time to let go of the idea that the field or
the meeting entail special circumstances that mitigate inappropriate behaviour1. While it’s true that there are
challenges specific to both, this is all the more reason to push for regulation
and oversight to preserve safe workspaces for all, regardless of whether this
workspace is halfway up a mountain, in a conference centre, or a lab.
.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario