Displays

The European Geosciences Union (EGU) is the leading organisation for Earth, planetary and space science research in Europe. The annual EGU General Assembly is the largest and most prominent European geosciences event, attracting over 16,000 scientists from all over the world in the year 2019. 
This presentation aims to present the results from gender and career stage distribution at the last (2015 to 2019) EGU General Assemblies (GA).  Data and statistics will be presented not only on the attendance, but also to the role in the general assembly, i.e. author, convener, presenter.
As expected, given the academic history of the geosciences as a male - dominated field, a gender gap is observed, with an overall gender breakdown of EGU GA’s attendance of about one third of women and two thirds of men; on the other hand, the fraction of female attendees is very slightly but constantly increasing in the years (and not only among early-career scientists). The percentage of female attendees in fact passed from 32.6% in 2015 to 33.8% in 2018 (the percentage in 2019 was even greater, but in that year the number of those who provided gender information dropped from 17% to 30%, so we consider the last year the less informative for the gender analysis).
In addition, when looking at organisational roles, much steeper is the increase in the fraction of female conveners: in fact the percentage of female conveners was 30.1% in 2018, that is much closer to that of the overall female attendees, whereas it was about 25.9% only 3 years earlier.
Looking at career stages, the percentage of early-career scientists among the overall attendees is substantially increased in the last years (from 43% in 2015 to 52% in 2019), and also in this case, the fraction of early-career conveners steeply raised too (from 30% in 2015 to 43% in 2019).
The analysis on the number of conveners, even if there is still a skew towards male and mid-career or senior scientists, shows that there has been a noticeable improvement in the balance of gender and career-stage over the last years in terms of key-roles in the organisation of the main EGU event.
Despite such improvement in term of convenorship, more can certainly be done inside the Union, and an attempt to provide constructive indications to further steps to the target of giving equal opportunities to researchers across gender and career-stage will also be given.

How to cite: Toth, E., Jesus-Rydin, C., and Montanari, A.: Gender and career-stage distribution at EGU General Assemblies, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-21785, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-21785, 2020.

How to cite: Karatekin, Ö.: Equality of opportunities in geosciences: The EGU Awards Committee experience, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-20850, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-20850, 2020.

The American Geophysical Union, a scientific society of > 60,000 members worldwide, has undertaken strategic initiatives over the past twenty-four months, to help spotlight and address important issues around ethics, diversity and inclusion.  Most recently, this work has focused on building partnerships and a unique coalition of societies to help extend and promote leading ethics and diversity practices across STEM. These recent advancements build on AGU’s earlier work of establishing an updated AGU Ethics Policy which defines sexual harassment as scientific misconduct and its more recent adoption of an updated AGU Diversity and Inclusion Strategic plan – providing a vision and roadmap for AGU to operate as a model organization for advancing diversity and inclusion in science.

This presentation will review AGU global demographics considerations, highlight key features of the AGU Diversity and Inclusion Strategic plan, and will include an update on key programmatic work and unique resources provided through the AGU Ethics and Equity Center and its partner organizations. AGU’s role in the formation of a consortium of more than 120 scientific societies to help leverage D&I-related leading practices and influence culture change—will also be discussed, including progress to date, preliminary program metrics, and remaining challenges and opportunities.

How to cite: Williams, B., Hanson, B., and Bell, R.: AGU Ethics Diversity and Inclusion: Leveraging Partnerships to Achieve Inclusive Excellence , EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-5943, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5943, 2020.

According to the Global gender equality Rankings by World Economic Forum, the Gender Index rank of Japan has been below 100 during the last 8 years. Every 4 years, Japan ranking has been slipping by 10 points, and has finally reached 121st in 2019. In 2011, the Japanese government released the “Promotion of Positive action” program targeting 30% of women’s participation in the workplace including Academia by 2020. However, this goal has not been met as yet. Based on the 15th survey by the Japan Association National Universities which includes most Geoscience departments of Japan, only 4% of national universities have achieved >30% female to total academic staff ratio. The average ratio increased slightly from 13.0% (2011) to 16.7% (2018). The change is quite slow and is hard to accelerate. In the STEM field, female staff ratios are 12.3% (Agriculture), 8.7% (Science) and 6.2% (Engineering). The percentage of undergraduate female students in Science has gradually decreased during these 10 years from ca. 28% to 25% in total, while the number of women in Ph.D. studies increased as a result of several empowerment programs. A recently organized All Nippon Diversity Network (OPENed: O-Progressive initiatives of Empowering Network for Diversity) provides a country-wide platform for networking institutional activities on diversity issues and sharing information on efficient activities and practices for empowerment. In this presentation, we are sharing information on ongoing action in Japan concerning gender issues, and try to identify and discuss unconscious problems/causes for improvement.

How to cite: Hori, S., R.: Progress and problems of gender equality in Japanese academia, and empowerment activities in science and geoscience, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-20881, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-20881, 2020.

Gender equality is rare in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, with men dominating the scientific positions. However, for CAGE Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate Environment and Climate at UiT The Arctic University of Norway achieving gender equality has never been a problem. The Norwegian centre of excellence has had gender equality in all positions from its start in 2013. During this time, CAGE scientists have produced over 300 scientific papers and welcomed 18 CAGE-babies to the world. The leadership group consists of 75 percent women, while the Steering Board of CAGE is an even split between genders. How is it possible for a centre that has geosciences as primary fields of research, to achieve gender equality? CAGE is an excellent case study on how larger societal and structural incentives, as well as leadership ambitions, can make gender equality in STEM more than a pipe dream. There are several aspects that have helped us reach and maintain gender equality: good parental leave and heavily regulated working conditions in Norway that make work/life balance achievable, which in turn makes us attractive to qualified young female scientists; institutional incentives help us find good female candidates and nurture them to more prominent positions, and CAGE center structure allows us to maintain a good progression in our projects, even when the project managers are away on parental leave.

How to cite: Sojtaric, M. and Andreassen, K.: Gender equality in science can be achieved, but it requires ambitious effort from society, institutions and individual leaders. , EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-10900, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-10900, 2020.

In order to build a diverse, inclusive community of geoscientists within Europe, a statistical study is carried out based on participation statistics of different conferences in Europe over the past five years. Data of geoscience conferences (EGU, IUGG), planetary (EPSC) and solar-terrestrial science conferences (ESWW, ESPM) are investigated. Special focus is given to the historical division between Eastern and Western Europe and senior and junior scientists. The aim is to show that the geographical division continues to exist and does not show a general improving trend, while the position of the younger generation seems to improve. Some “success cases” defying the usual trend are shown and analysed in detail. We suggest some reasons behind the statistics and draw some lessons that can help integrating less represented researchers into the mainstream of European geosciences.

How to cite: Dósa, M., Timár, A., and Heward, A.: Integrating less represented countries into the mainstream of European geosciences, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-7236, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-7236, 2020.

Fear of harassment and physical violence (Patridge, Barthelemy and Rankin, 2014), experiences of discrimination, perceptions of a lack of support, lower job satisfaction (Cech and Pham 2017), feelings of isolation, and a need to work harder than colleagues to convince others of their competence (Yoder and Mattheis 2016) – these characterise the reported workplace experience of LGBT+ people in STEM disciplines in both academic and professional contexts.

Williams, Giuffre and Dellinger (2009) coin the term ‘the gay-friendly closet’ to reflect the experience of people who, despite being out in gay-friendly workplaces, report that they still downplay their homosexuality, or conform to stereotypes of how LGBT+ people are “expected to look, act and work” (p. 29).  Many of their respondents claimed their acceptance as ‘normal’ ran alongside their own invisibility (know-one-knows-I-am-gay narratives). Other respondents, felt their acceptance was contingent on their choice not to ‘overplay’ their homosexuality. Tensions exist between negotiating a professional identity while managing perceptions so they are situated within the bounds of acceptability (Rumens and Kerfoot 2009; Benozzo et al. 2015). Gay/lesbian respondents have suggested that acceptability in the workplace is contingent on self-censorship, selective revelation, and/or assimilative compromises, all of which legitimize heteronormative discourses around sexuality and professional identity. These issues are recognised as more significant within STEM disciplines – which is considered a stridently masculinist and heteronormative field (Bilimoria and Stewart 2009; Cech and Pham 2017).

In an educational context where LGBT+ students have the right to remain invisible, Toynton (2006) questions whether educators have the same right. Kumashiro (2015) suggests that educators may have an obligation, for fundamental educational reasons, to be ‘out’ to their learners. Toynton (2006) frames this as an element of the debate around ‘safe places’ for queer students, and suggests it sets up a dilemma for queer educators - trapping them between empathy and potential hostility – requiring a choice between an ‘enabling visibility’ and the risk of alienation.

The presentation will explore the links between critical educational praxis (focussed on Freire (1996), hooks (1994) and Britzman (1995)), queer theory (primarily Butler (1999) and Foucault (1990)), and anarchist methodologies and ethics (Deleuze and Guattari (1994) and Heckert (2016)). It will consider how this integration produces a space based on post-structural / post-human readings of sexuality and identity that enables transformative engagement, and commits to radical compassion as the primary ethos for research engagement.

How to cite: Horswell, M.: Conceiving a space for compassionate engagement with LGBT+ university lecturers around professional identity, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-17929, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-17929, 2020.

Women experienced significant barriers to fulfilling leadership roles in the earlier years of oceanography and marine science, in common with other scientific fields, especially those that require long expeditions away from ‘home’ and under conditions that were perceived as physically and mentally challenging. However, in recent years more women have become involved in ocean-going science, a trend that has gone hand-in-hand with adjustments in attitudes, opportunities, support during career breaks, and practical logistics on research vessels. Now, in the UK and many other countries, it has become standard to have a strong representation of women on board oceanographic expeditions, including in positions of leadership and on extended expeditions to remote locations.

Here, we have brought together a group of UK-based female oceanographers from different career stages to reflect on experiences of leadership at sea. We will share our positive stories of empowerment, evidence how diversity improves working at sea, and identify ongoing challenges that women face in marine science, and some possible solutions. Our key message is that all roles are now available to women, from chief scientist to technician, and from engineer to captain.

How to cite: Hendry, K. and the Women in UK Ocean Science: Women in UK Ocean Science: Experiences of female leadership roles at sea, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13751, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13751, 2020.

As relatively older, international PhD student, the process of moving to a new institution in a new country presented me with challenges I have not faced before and motivated me to explore the issue of diversity in academia and beyond. In the summer of 2016, as a third year PhD student, I gathered a small group of women at Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory to discuss actions to increase inclusivity within our department. A few months later we had our first Gender and Diversity Coffee hour. We met monthly, initially with no agenda, to talk about things that bothered us and to explore what could be done both in the short and long-term. What started as a small grass-roots initiative, evolved into a widely attended monthly meeting, where we covered many subjects (some “tabooed”) including family and academia, harassment, impostor syndrome, academia stress culture, mental health stigma, long distance relationships, minorities being penalized for promoting women and minorities issues, non-binary identities and more. Over time a core group formed around these issues, consisting of both higher and lower ranks at Lamont. Some conversations were very hard: the lesson that different people experience reality in different ways is not an easy one. Nevertheless, these meetings provided space for people to express their feelings and frustrations, while also listening, building understanding, and developing actionable solutions. Varied feedback has shown that people have come out of the meetings feeling empowered to make their work environment healthier and more inclusive. In what has since become an inseparable part of the institutional routine, and which is now left to run by other talented hands, I believe this group contributed significantly to cultural changes at Lamont. In this presentation, I will share my personal experience of establishing the group and coordinating the meetings. I will also explore how dialog within the meetings, projected out to the whole community and beyond; promoting a better work environment, especially for students and junior staff at Lamont. 

How to cite: Yehudai, M. and Tweed, L. E.: Increasing institutional inclusivity through productive community dialogs, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13498, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13498, 2020.

Up to one in four UK adults now experience a mental health issue each year. Meanwhile, the numbers of UK university students reporting a mental health condition rose by a factor of five between 2006 and 2016, reaching two percent, with some higher education institutions reporting that one in four students have accessed or are waiting to access mental health services. There are a number of aspects of work and study in the geological sciences that can contribute to or exacerbate poor mental health, with fieldwork identified as a particular source of stress and worry for students and professionals alike. Without clearly signposted pathways to support mental health in the geosciences, students and professionals may choose to leave the field.

In 2019, the Geological Society of London launched a mental health and wellbeing programme for its own staff, and is now sharing the model, and lessons learned during implementation, with geologists and employers of geologists. Following a mental health awareness course made available to all staff, staff were encouraged to apply to become a certified mental health first aider and/or to serve on the newly created Mental Health and Wellbeing Group. Over a quarter of staff members applied for one or both positions, with 20 percent selected for the group, and four of those members selected to become mental health first aiders. In addition, a member of the senior leadership team trained as a mental health champion. We have also launched a survey of employee attitudes toward and understanding of mental health, and started to deliver a series of stress-reducing activities. Early results include staff members reporting feeling more valued as people and an increased uptake of services offered through the employee assistance programme, which offers confidential support around mental and physical health. We will also assess changes in employee morale and sickness absence following the introduction of the programme. Finally, we offer strategies for proposing and implementing mental health and wellbeing programmes at other geoscience employers.

How to cite: Newton, A., Sarney, A., and O'Donnell, M.: Mind matters: A model for mental health awareness and support from the Geological Society of London, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-19002, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-19002, 2020.

We analyzed the participation of women scientists in 10 ESA (European Space Agency) Solar System missions over a period of 38 years [1]. Being part of a spacecraft mission science team can be considered a proxy to measure the "success" in the field. Although the number of female scientists in the field has been constantly increasing in Europe, we did not observe a similar increase in their participation in ESA Solar System missions. Participation of women in PI (Principal Investigators) teams varied between 4 and 25%, with several missions with no women as PI. The percentage of female scientists as Co-I (Co-Investigators) is always less than 16%. This number is lower than the percentage of women in the International Astronomical Union from all ESA Member States (24%).

We compared our results with NASA statistics. Participation of women in NASA spacecraft science teams varies from none to just over 30% [2]. The percentage has been increasing. However, this increase is more similar to a step function than a linear increase, with the pre-2000 average at 5.7% and post-2000 at 15.8%. This is well below the percentage of women in the field in the US, which has grown from 20% to 30% over the same time range. The ESA data are consistent with the NASA data, including the jump around the year 2000.

One of the main difficulties we encountered was to find the list of team members. An additional difficulty was to determine the percentage of female scientists in planetary science in Europe. We would like to encourage the planetary community as a whole, as well as international organizations, universities and societies to continuously gather statistics over many years. Detailed statistics are only the first step to closely monitor the development of achievement gaps and initiate measures to tackle potential causes of inequity, leading to gender inequalities in STEM careers.

[1] Piccialli et al., submitted to ADGEO

[2] Rathbun, Julie A.: Participation of women in spacecraft science teams, Nature Astronomy, Volume 1, id. 0148 (2017).

How to cite: Piccialli, A., Rathbun, J. A., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Määttänen, A., Milillo, A., Rengel, M., Rotundi, A., Taylor, M., Witasse, O., Altieri, F., Drossart, P., and Vandaele, A. C.: Participation of women scientists in ESA Solar System missions: an historical trend, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-19310, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-19310, 2020.

I got Ph.D. on the subseafloor hydrothermal system along the mid-ocean ridges. However, I changed my topics to global carbon cycle in the modern state and in the past when I was 35 year old. Therefore my research room has been interested in wide range of topics in geoscience: material cycle in the Earth’s surface, including C and water cycles, paleo and modern climate/environmental change and mineral resources. Since I believe that the real innovation has been carried out in human society and I think that some researchers have limited view of thinks, I have never strongly pushed the students to go to Ph.D. course. Therefore many highly competent students started to work at companies/ government after getting Master Degree. In spite of these circumstances, 22 students got Ph.D. at my research room during the last 25 years. The number is much larger than those of common geoscience research rooms at Japanese universities. Especially the female Ph.D.s (11) are just 50%, the largest in Japanese geoscience community. By the way, the relative abundances of female students in the JPGU participants and in Japanese Ph.D. course are around 30% and <20%, respectively. I have never invited female students, more than male students, on purpose. Every student at my research room receives equal good treatment. I am very often saying to the students, ”if you have any problem, please tell me. I do work for you.”. Female student at my laboratory mostly got Bachelor’s degree at the high rank university and therefore is very capable with her own opinion. I welcome her opposite view against me. Also she can give her frank opinion to our laboratory’s members although female people often have reserved attitude in Japan, which she would experience after leaving my research room. Although I have done nothing for special purpose, I respect Diversity, Equality, and Inclusions very much and take much care of her own effort to develop her ability and to cultivate her individuality. She has job that would stretch herself after Ph.D.. Currently 100% of female students at my laboratory, who would to become scientific researchers, succeeded in getting permanent/regular positions at Japanese universities/national laboratories. I have been saying that I would like to work for both male and female younger generations because I have one daughter and one son.

How to cite: Kawahata, H.: Diversity, Equality and Inclusion will promote the activities of female students in Japan, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-21194, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-21194, 2020.

 #metoo movement has raised discussion on the extent of sexual harassment also in the academia. In 2018 Helsinki Association of Women Researchers (Finland) conducted a qualitative survey on experiences of sexual harassment and opinions on definition of sexual harassment among Finnish universities. The results show that sexual harassment and related power misuse are problems also in the Finnish research and higher education community. While there are clear cut cases that can be immediately recognized as harassment, a large fraction of the cases belong to the grey area, causing hesitation and deficiencies in reporting and actions. This, among personal suffering, also maintains a risk that the borderline behaviour escalates to the next level. Common definitions of sexual harassment include phrases such as ‘unwanted’ or ‘without consent’, which are difficult to interpret unambiguously. Beside provocative statements, there has also been genuine concern that mixed gender workplace social interaction can be interpreted as harassment, which in the worst case can lead to even increased segregation of professional networks based on gender, which is a severe threat to equal opportunities. We have developed and tested a facilitated group discussion activity for workplace communities to establish common understanding for the borders of sexual harassment. The activity involves discussions on hypothetical borderline harassment cases in small groups. The aim is not to form an unequivocal verdict on whether these cases are harassment or not, but discuss which factors affect the assessment. The diversity of opinions rising from, for example, personal and cultural differences is collected on an online-based white-board. We have conducted the activity as part of departmental recreation days and staff training events, and the participants feedback indicates that it is a useful tool in making people more aware of the differences in personal borderlines. Facilitated discussions help in creating an atmosphere where people, irrespective of their position in the power structure, feel more free to express if the limits of their comfort zone have been breached, and where drawing a line is respected rather than ridiculed. The activity not only helps in preventing sexual harassment and bullying, but also stress and burnout by creating a culture where protecting personal limits is permitted and respected.

How to cite: Vehkamäki, H., Lauri, A., Tuominen, E., and Salmesvuori, P.: Facilitated group discussion method for prevention sexual harassment, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-2393, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-2393, 2020.

Geosciences together with larger STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) communities are highly burdened with striking imbalance between female and male researchers especially at high level positions. Indeed, for example in Earth and Planetary Sciences women represent only around 37% of the scientific community. Moreover, different expressions of gender biases tend to preserve these male dominated environments and thwart achieving gender balanced work places. In this contribution, I present three local actions that aim to improve gender diversity in science and promote gender equality. 1) Together with the 500 Women Scientists organisation and supported by the host university, I have been organising a series of Breaking Gender Barriers discussion evenings. These events include short presentations by female experts, and panel and roundtable discussions. We target female researchers in their early careers to increase their competitiveness, motivate them, show them female role models and provide them with networking opportunities. 2) I co-created a mentoring group at my host institution that helps in career building, provides a safe environment for sharing and offers networking opportunities. 3) Lack of female role models in science (evinced already at very early age in the education chain) impedes heavily the communities to evolve into gender parity systems. That is why I present female scientific role models depicted on high quality posters to large public. Combination of these actions are critical in motivating young girls to pursue a scientific career, support sustainable career development and contribute as a solution to losing female researchers at diverse career stages known as the leaky pipeline problem.   

How to cite: Ulvrova, M.: Breaking Gender Barriers: Local actions towards gender equality , EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-21435, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-21435, 2020.

Women in Geospatial+ is a professional network that promotes gender-equality in the geospatial industry and academia. In October 2019, Women in Geospatial+ launched an online career mentorship programme that attracted over 180 global applicants. The inaugural cohort featured 42 participants from 17 countries who were matched with mentors, mentees or peer mentors based on their career goals and time zones. 

The programme enabled mentorship between mid-career and early career participants as well as peer mentorship between people with similar career stages. People of all genders were welcome to participate in this year-long programme. As a result, two men participated as mentors. Participants were provided with a mentorship programme guide with resources for a successful mentorship experience. They were also required to discuss goals and expectations as a group and submit an agreement form at the start of the programme. A safe space via a Slack channel was created where women could interact with other women participants in the mentorship programme. In addition, a social media campaign on Twitter and LinkedIn (#MentorshipMonday) also featured programme participants, their work and their achievements in the geospatial field.

This presentation will feature lessons learned from organising the mentorship programme as well as feedback from participants about how the mentorship programme has impacted their careers and professional growth.

How to cite: Szeto, S. H., Wagemann, J., and Douglas, A. A.: Mentorship knows no distance: an online career mentorship programme by Women in Geospatial+, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-266, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-266, 2020.

Livelihood capital is the basis for farmers to maintain livelihood sustainability and to make farming decisions. A major assertion that has been demonstrated with limited empirical evidence in the capital literature is the gender difference dichotomy. Using rural Dazu District as a case study, this paper constructs the evaluation index system of livelihood capital and carries on the comprehensive evaluation from a gender perspective. A stratified random sampling technique and household questionnaire survey were used to collect data from Dazu District, China. An asset index was used to compute the capital levels, while the independent sample t test and the ordinary least square (OLS) model were employed to compare the differences between gender in livelihood capital. The results show that there were significant gender differences in farmers’ livelihood capital. Specifically, male farmers have better livelihood capital than female farmers. Furthermore, the results reveal that the livelihood capital of male and female farmers is influenced by different sets of factors. Age, happiness, planting structure, agricultural policy support and cooperatives are main factors affecting livelihood capital of female farmers, while main influencing factors of male farmers are education, years of farming, health, risk preference, planting structure and cooperatives. These results imply that specific gender intervention programs are necessary be implemented in order to maintain farmers’ livelihood sustainability and to overcome gender gaps in agriculture.

How to cite: Kuang, F., Jin, J., Liu, X., and Wang, Y.: Gender differences in farmers’ livelihood capital in Dazu District, China, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-1676, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-1676, 2020.

Norwegian geosciences institutes has as separate and spread entities had limited resources for teaching global, large-scale processes and changes related to the evolution of planetary interior and its interaction with the crust, atmosphere and hydrosphere. The institutes experienced that the courses offered locally were insufficient to educate young academics in fundamental and curiosity-driven Earth sciences. The PhD students also experienced to be alone within their field and without a network around them.

The quality of PhD education is highly relying on the supervisor’s ability to give good supervision, but the entire setting that a PhD student is situated in will contribute to their success in science. The short duration of Norwegian PhD programs combined with a course requirement of 30 ECTS points, calls for well-planned and efficient research, good supervision and course work. For a PhD student to work efficient a good workplace, role models and a good network is also of great importance. Under difficult conditions, the universities see higher drop out and longer completion time numbers from the PhD program, especially for already vulnerable groups.

The national research school of Dynamics and Evolution of Earth and Planets (DEEP) aims to gather the Norwegian natural science expertise relevant for studying the Earth as part of the Solar System and promotes an environment that enables efficiency, at the same time as the scientific quality remains high. Since 2016 DEEP research school has offered specialised scientific courses and a bigger network for the PhD students and their supervisors. We see an increasing interest in joining the research school as part of the PhD program and increasing cooperation between PhD students within the network. With annual conferences and many smaller gatherings, we also ensure that the PhD students form a network amongst each other and find mentors that will strengthen them in their future careers.

How to cite: Birkelund, A. R. and Werner, S. C.: Creating quality in PhD education through a national research school network, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-2331, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-2331, 2020.

Travel and fieldwork are integral to the geosciences, and it is usual for students, academics and professionals to need to assess the risks and hazards of a planned trip in advance. In the UK, health and safety law focusses on the idea of a “risk assessment” - a process by which hazards are identified and mitigations are planned to reduce the overall risk of the activity. A recent review of our risk assessment procedures highlighted the need to better consider the needs of a diverse community, including those with “protected characteristics” in UK law. These are defined in the Equality Act 2010 as: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

We present our improved risk assessment forms and suggest some approaches to considering hazards and appropriate mitigations that particularly affect those people with protected characteristics. These include the need to consider how laws and attitudes, such as those towards women, or LGBT+ people, may affect the safety of participants. It is particularly important to address this in the geosciences, where fieldwork is frequently an integral part of teaching and learning activities.

How to cite: Prior-Jones, M., Pinnion, J., Millet, M.-A., Bagshaw, E., Fagereng, A., and Ballinger, R.: An inclusive risk assessment tool for travel and fieldwork, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-7678, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-7678, 2020.

How to cite: Ebner, R., Baxter, A., Cox, J., Dunn, F., Hagemans, K., and Roelofs, L.: You can't be what you can't see - Increasing the visibility of female scientists, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-10949, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-10949, 2020.

Geochemistry has become central to geoscience research; yet, many students have no access to geochemical laboratories because such labs are expensive to build, maintain, and run. Sophisticated geochemical and isotopic techniques require specialized training and technical support. As a result, most of these lab tend to exist only at well-funded, large, graduate-focused institutions. All of these factors cause isotope techniques to be available to only a small subset of the student and faculty population – often white, well off and male.

Since 2018, our cosmogenic nuclide clean laboratory at the University of Vermont has been supported by the US National Science Foundation as a community facility for cosmogenic nuclide sample preparation; our primary goal is to increase access to such specialized techniques isotopic techniques. During our first year under NSF funding, we hosted 36 individual users and several group tours. Visitors came for weeks to months at a time to process their own samples and learn laboratory methods. Our visitors included 12 faculty members, 3 professionals, 13 graduate students, and 8 undergraduate students; they represented 27 different institutions across 16 American states and 4 other countries. We have sought to optimize safety and laboratory training procedures, enabling us to host visitors regardless of their previous experience working in a laboratory setting. We work with visitors collaboratively and are involved in their projects from inception to publication, thereby including researchers who have had no experience with isotopes, laboratory science, or geochronology. The diversity of our visitors far exceeds that of US Geoscience as a whole and includes many woman and demographics currently under-represented in Geoscience faculty ranks.

However, challenges to facilitating a diverse community still exist. Although all training and mentoring costs are covered by the US NSF, visitors to the Community Cosmogenic Facility pay a per-sample fee to cover consumables, pay for AMS analyses, and cover their own travel, all of which restrict access. Certain interested users come from countries for which obtaining a US visa is challenging or impossible; similarly, users may not be able to travel to Vermont for financial or personal reasons. We are exploring additional possibilities for awarding our own internal grants in order to be more inclusive, and also seek to develop robust online content so that collaborators can learn from afar. Increasing diversity, inclusivity, and access in isotopic techniques is a work in progress, which we will continue address in the coming years.

How to cite: Bierman, P. and Corbett, L.: Hands on geochemistry as a means to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion in geoscience, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-12449, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-12449, 2020.

From the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to current diversity statements, science entities in the U.S. and globally promote and enhance diversity and equity. For example, EGU, AGU, and Europlanet aim to ‘improve equality of opportunity and diversity’, ‘foster an inclusive environment where science and scientific careers can flourish’, and ‘build a diverse inclusive community,’ respectively. One of these areas is in scientific conferences, not only in the participation in the conference but also engagement and representation at every level.

Observations were made and strategies employed while hosting (together with colleagues) four AGU Chapman conferences between 2011-2016. As we focused on intentionally increasing inclusion, the first conference was exploratory, the second observational, the third was not intervened, and for the fourth conference, efforts were made at each step, e.g. increased representation of women at 20%, support diverse country and socioeconomic participation, etc. All four conferences aimed to promote interdisciplinary scientific discussions among solar and heliospheric scientists, and magnetospheric and ionospheric scientists for Earth and other planets with icebreaker activities and cultural programs from four different global regions: (1) Alaska, (2) Iceland, (3) South Korea, and (4) Croatia. Each conference posed new challenges.

Within the social ecological framework, individual and interpersonal inner-level determinants were our primary target leading us to seek broader viewpoints through an internationally distributed survey. In this presentation, we describe challenges, best-practice interventions, and share some early survey results about what constitutes an inclusive conference. We continue to seek and share INCLUSIVE strategies to promote advocacy for policy changes and for additional measures that could be applied at the conference initiation. 

How to cite: Smith-Keiling, B. and Keiling, A.: Early Survey Results and Broader Viewpoints for Promoting Inclusive Conferences in the Earth and Space Sciences, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-22324, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-22324, 2020.

The Earth System Modelling Capacity (ESM) project is a 3-year effort funded by the Helmholtz Association started in April 2017 and involving eight research centres across Germany. The project has a strong knowledge transfer component aiming to provide decision-makers with relevant tools in order to face grand challenges in the near future and to support early career scientists (PhD students and early career postdoctoral researchers) from ESM project partner centres as well as the national and international community in developing and strengthening their knowledge on Earth system modelling, as one of the primary efforts to establish a legacy for the project.

From 9^th to 19^th of September 2019, the ESM summer school was held in Bad Aibling (Germany) with 50 participating students from 26 institutes placed all over the world. A core objective of the school was to train and educate early-career scientists from a wide range of discipline and with a diverse international and gender background to apply cutting edge science in the study of the Earth system and at the same time to engage in a stimulating exercise of knowledge transfer for the project.

During the 10-day summer school, students had four lectures daily about topics related to the Earth system and its components, from atmospheric dynamics to terrestrial modelling, from the modelling of waves and oceans to that of ice sheets and glaciers. The school included practical exercises and hands-on sessions that involved coding and building mini-cluster computers, building on the advanced technical knowledge of ESM partners and scientists. The lectures were held by thirty researchers from the ESM Project’s partner institutes and beyond. Two poster sessions were also organized, where students had the chance to present their work to their peers and to the senior scientists, exchange experiences, share results and receive feedbacks from fellow students and lecturers.

In this presentation, we will present the concept and key features of the summer school, content and organisation, and also offer the students’ feedback collected after the school in an effort to showcase an example of how summer schools remain a powerful mean to value diversities and create an inclusive environment in (Earth system) science.

How to cite: Cristini, L., Sausen, R., Mertens, M., Wieters, N., and Pasqualetto, S.: Bridging the Future of Earth System Modelling – the ESM Summer School 2019, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-8511, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-8511, 2020.

Many countries face significant challenges in attracting, retaining and diversifying the workforce in the geosciences.  In the U.S. likely contributing factors include the homogeneity of the pool of mentors/role models available both within the workforce and in the professorate.  Another probable factor is “exposure gaps” among student populations; i.e., differing access to engaging facets of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To address these challenges, the authors have created a set of NSF-funded programs. The STEMSEAS program recruits undergraduates from diverse backgrounds and institutions to sail on research vessels transits in the U.S. Academic Fleet – giving them relatively short, but transformative experiences at sea. Along with carefully selected mentors who are also from diverse backgrounds, these students spend 5-10 days at sea with a network of students from across the country experiencing a wide range of oceanography and Earth science research techniques and data collection methods.

For educators, the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) utilizes transits and tie-ups of the scientific ocean drilling vessel JOIDES Resolution to provide professional development for educators based on the science and technology of science drilling. School of Rock programs aim to address specific diversity goals, focusing on measures to broaden participation at all levels (i.e., pre-college, undergraduate and beyond) in innovative ways (e.g., from place-based curriculum to longitudinal peer mentoring through extracurricular STEM communities).  We seek to add rich international experiences to enhance educators’ motivation and morale, while fostering connections to establish new mechanisms for increased engagement, broader recruitment, enhanced support, and improved retention of students from underrepresented communities from the middle school level to the undergraduate and graduate levels and into the workplace. 

A sister program, Ambassadors for STEM Training to Enhance Participation (ASTEP) works with more upper-level undergraduate and graduate students to leverage both STEMSEAS and School of Rock.  In particular, ASTEP participants take part in both STEMSEAS and/or School of Rock programming, and then build on these experiences to create outreach materials and presentations to share with diverse communities afterwards. This presentation will share best practices and survey results from these programs and our participants that contribute to the conversations around diversity and inclusion, and replication of these models in international settings.

How to cite: Cooper, S., White, L., and Lewis, J.: Addressing geoscience diversity with innovative at-sea experiences for students and educators , EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-9523, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-9523, 2020.

This presentation reflects on the first Women’s Networking Events at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics’s General Assembly (2019) and the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy’s Electromagnetic Induction Workshop (2018). These meetings are historically extremely male-dominated events and the Women’s Networking Events provided a first-of-its-kind space for women to network with one another, creating solidarity and community for participants to rely on through the meeting and beyond. Both events were well attended, especially by early career women, with ~40 participants in each case. Women’s Networking Events have been present at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting for many years now, and these inaugural IUGG/IAGA Women’s Networking Events will hopefully lead to many more (indeed, the local organizing committee for the 2020 Electromagnetic Induction Workshop has already included the Women’s Networking Event in the workshop schedule and budget). This presentation will discuss the motivation behind the events, lessons learned, and ideas for the future.

How to cite: Schnepf, N.: The first Women's Networking Events at the IUGG General Assembly (2019) and the IAGA EM Induction Workshop (2018), EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-10889, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-10889, 2020.

Geological patterns exposed on the surface of the earth are fundamental to understanding the processes that formed and shape our world; fieldwork, therefore, underpins the geosciences and geoscience education in particular. For many students, fieldtrips are a major attraction to the geosciences. Nevertheless, for many others, fieldwork presents a barrier to studying or enjoying geoscience at university, potentially contributing to the dual diversity and recruitment crises being felt throughout the discipline. A pressing but often overlooked barrier is the issue of toilet stops and menstruation in the field. Informal surveys indicate that toileting information is rarely given to undergraduates in advance of or during fieldwork. Failure to provide adequate information causes unnecessary anxiety and stress and may lead to students managing or restricting fluid intake, with potential downstream health impacts such as urinary tract infections or dehydration. Here we present a short educational primer with recommended best practices for field-based teaching. The primer covers topics such as peeing, menstruation, and provision of sanitary supplies, as well as suggestions for inclusive itinerary development. Future work will develop this primer further by incuding critical perspectives on other issues that may increase the need for frequent toilet stops. This primer is released under a CC-BY-4.0 license to facilitate sharing amongst staff and students. It is hoped that this will go some way to minimizing stress and anxiety for all parties, ultimately contributing to more inclusive field teaching.

How to cite: Giles, S., Greene, S., Ashey, K., Dunne, E., Edgar, K., and Hanson, E.: Getting the basics right: a field-teaching primer on toilet stops in the field, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-11723, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-11723, 2020.

We know that national research priorities across the European continent are markedly different in many situations. However, there is little understanding at the level of defining major collaborative research programme and professional associations, where, for instance, EGU has showed for several years an increase in disequilibrium for homogenizing priorities and leadership interest. The variable rate of success in west to east European funding leads to polarization rather than integration of science and research approach in an European landscape that becomes less homogeneous. Such unfortunate trends lead at the extreme to major collaborative disagreement, where the recent delay in setting the EU research budget by objections of Central European countries is a prime example. I examine here the state of the Western European often unconscious bias in research priorities across the continental and what can be done more effectively to avoid scientific nationalism and polarization of interest. A beneficial combination can be achieved only by knowing and understanding the national specificity of each other in both directions, east- and west-wards.

How to cite: Matenco, L.: Understanding the complex east-west relationships in the European geoscience research landscape, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13587, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13587, 2020.

Like any other workplace, academia is not free from everyday gender stereotypes and sexist behaviours. They participate in the feeling of insecurity and devaluation of women and gender non-conforming individuals, which ultimately contributes to a persisting gender imbalance in this environment. Building on this observation, the Did this really happen?! project, born in 2018, aims at reporting real occurrences of everyday sexism experienced within the scientific community. Using comic strips, we raise awareness about such behaviours and their pernicious consequences, which are often difficult to notice. Through our website www.didthisreallyhappen.net, we have now collected more than 100 contributions from researchers all over the world, describing sexist biases that they have faced or witnessed in academia. We have already turned 25 of them into anonymous comics that we publish without any comments on the website. In hindsight, we have identified six repeating categories of sexist behaviours: 1) those that aim at maintaining women in stereotypical feminine roles, 2) those that aim at maintaining men in stereotypical masculine roles, 3) those that question the scientific skills of female researchers, 4) those where women have the position of an outsider, especially in informal networking contexts, 5) those that objectify women, and 6) those which express neosexist views. Here, we present our project in more details, propose a detailed analysis of these sexist situations, and we are happy to discuss further ways to engage with the scientific community on this topic.

How to cite: Arnould, M., Adenis, A., Bocher, M., Coltice, N., Gérault, M., Mallard, C., and Ulvrova, M.: Did this really happen?! Analysis of a two-year initiative to draw everyday sexism in academia., EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13724, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13724, 2020.

The European Research Council (ERC), Europe’s premiere funding agency for frontier research, views equality of opportunities as an essential priority. The ERC monitors closely various demographic data yearly on every call and has taken actions to tackle imbalances and potential implicit and explicit biases.

The ERC poster is focused on demographic geosciences data for the three main funding schemes: Starting Grant, Consolidator Grant and Advanced Grant. The data of the ERC population is expressed statistically, with focus on gender and geographic location.

Success rates of geosciences applicants by gender are compared to the both success rates from other fields of science at the ERC and other funding organisations in Europe.

Recent initiatives at the ERC to tackle imbalances are also presented.

How to cite: Alves de Jesus Rydin, C., Farina Busto, L., and Mugabushaka, A.-M.: European Research Council (ERC) success rates of men and women in the geosciences, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13968, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13968, 2020.

Fixed-term researchers, not only for female researchers but also for male researchers, have a more volatile life than non-term researchers. There are quite a few countries that are struggling with this issue, and it can be said that each country has its own characteristics. It is often said that it is necessary to take positive actions and set numerical targets for improving gender equality issues. However, in fact in Japan it is often said that "it is inverse discrimination" at the stage of submitting a request to set such numerical targets or when recruiting researchers only for women as one of positive actions. When such fact occurred, the seeds for improving gender equality actions would be pulled away before they grow up. Large-scale surveys of female researcher ratio and activities in almost all STEM fields have been conducted through EPMEWSE by 5 years intervals. The recent survey was done in 2017. The results were analyzed and reported 2018 in Japanese and 2019 in English. According to the report, the average age at which half of fixed-term female researchers can move to permanent positions is 2-3 years older than male researchers. Reflecting this, the average annual income of fixed-term female researchers is lower than that of male researchers. In this presentation, I will introduce the results of a comparison of such data between the STEM field and the earth and planetary science field.

How to cite: Oguchi, C.: Differences between female and male researchers with fixed-term positions in Japan, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-18450, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-18450, 2020.

The EU-funded project, Baltic Gender (www.baltic-gender.eu), has been working since 2016 to help reduce gender segregation and gender inequalities in marine science and technology. Gender-sensitive indicators from eight institutions participating in Baltic Gender (from Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania and Sweden) set the scene for the status of gender equality in marine S&T in Europe today. Although 34-50% of doctorate students are women, this proportion drops dramatically at professorship positions (0-27%). The glass ceiling index can be used to look at the career phase, where bottlenecks in an institution appear (i.e., where the retention rates of different genders vary the most). More women than men are observed to drop out at the transition from postdoc to faculty positioning or from junior professorship to professorship, depending on the career path development plan of the specific institution. Data from German research ships (Sonne, Maris S. Merian, Meteor, Poseidon, Alkor, Polarstern, Heincke, Elisabeth Mann Borgese) show that the average length of the scientific cruises led by men and women was the same in 2018, but only one fifth of the chief scientists were women.

Baltic Gender implemented activities at three levels. At the individual level, initiatives (such as mentoring, leadership trainings and grass-root networks) were introduced to support career growth and networking, especially at those career stages where bottlenecks exist. At the structural level, best practice examples were selected from Baltic Gender partners and collected in a handbook to promote structural changes. These best practice examples support equal opportunities, transparent processes and respectful cooperation in marine sciences. Additionally, custom tailored training sessions were organised in the Baltic Gender institutions to raise awareness on various topics such as unconscious bias, work-life balance, border violations to name a few. At the research level, a new methodology that guides the integration of gender perspectives into the content of marine science projects was developed and tested. Finally, Baltic Gender endorsed the integration of the above-mentioned indicators, initiatives and practices in the Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) of its partner institutions, paving the way for long lasting and gender fair structures.

How to cite: Kısakürek Ibsen, B., Kutser, T., Matthes, K., Schmeck, M., Stadmark, J., Vaitkevičienė, V., Valve, H., Waniek, J., and Werner, I.: Gender aspects in Marine Science, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-15174, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-15174, 2020.

The need of Role Models is one of the basic needs in our lives, and should be ensured and followed especially when one is thinking of undertaking a challenge. At different stages of our life and career we face different challenges and each of them needs a separate Role Model. The main message which comes from these Role Models is “You are not alone. I have done it as well. It’s doable.” Therefore, when talking about Role Models for Women in Science, it is important to cover the whole spectrum of different challenges women face during different stage of their career. The need for Role Models has been understood by the society and reflected in the recent literature (see, Howes and Herzenberg, 2015; McCullough, 2016; Calvin, 2017) and in datasets, such as AcademiaNet https://www.academia-net.org/, which is a European database listing outstanding women researchers in Germany. However, they are mostly focused on outstanding women academics, which are at the peak of their career, while young women need Role Models throughout the whole career and especially in its beginning. Role Models for early-career, middle-career and senior scientists may be different. Therefore, we think it is important to talk about Role Models at different stages of their career, and to show the whole wide range of challenges women face and to respond them by their stories.

In our project we focus on one such challenge, which is mobility of women scientists. Mobility support for women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) career is an increasingly important issue in today’s world. Cutting edge research tends to be undertaken via international collaboration, often within networks built up by moving to a new country. In addition, many of today’s funding opportunities are geared towards international cooperation. This topic is a bit overlooked by the society, while it is clear that mobility is gender sensitive especially for families with small kids. We have undertaken a Women Networking and Mobility project which is funded under the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Alumni award, to address the issues above. The project focus is specifically on the networking of women in STEM paying special interest to their mobility, and should provide mentoring support to those women who do or plan to do their research abroad. In order to support women and especially early career scientists who do or plan their research abroad, we published three books and created a database of corresponding Role Models. Our Role Models are at different stages of their career from PhD studies to professorship and they represent “real life” Role Models, which satisfies the need especially of young women. The latter means that they do not need to be outstanding in terms of winning Nobel Prize or ERC Synergy or Advanced Grant, but rather be successful in their research and achieve healthy work-life balance. We hope their stories and experience will support and inspire the young female scientists in their academic career.

How to cite: Didenkulova, I. and Avellis, G.: Role Models for Mobile Women Scientists, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-15490, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-15490, 2020.

Geoscientists are often highly mobile, making them attractive candidates for academic positions. Nevertheless, changing your country of residency can be very challenging, and such challenges are amplified if one has small children, and especially if both parents are active researchers. We are both geoscientists, with specialties in paleolimnology and geophysics, and have a 2-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter. We are originally from Guatemala and Germany, and our children were born in Mexico, where we worked for seven years before moving to Germany.

Culture shock is often expected to be severe when moving from Europe to a developing country, like Mexico or Guatemala. In our case, however, we experienced serious cultural shock when we moved from Latin America to Germany. It became apparent that conditions were harsh for couples that try to live equitably at home and at work, and attempt not to neglect either family life or science. We identified multiple challenges in our daily life, such as: (1) the well-known lack of sufficient childcare options in Germany, (2) cultural differences at work, such as family-“unfriendly” scheduling of important meetings, (3) a lack of flexibility with respect to financial support for families whose members participate in professional symposia or fieldwork, and  (4) policies of granting institutions that sometimes, unintentionally, preclude family-friendly work in academic research.

Our personal experiences may help to elucidate why the gender disparity in science is larger in wealthy, central European countries such as Germany (28.0% female researchers, UNESCO 2018) than in many Latin American countries, such as Mexico (33.0%) and Guatemala (53.2%). By identifying key issues, we hope to improve the situation for parent researchers - both female and male. Changes will be required of universities in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that intend to improve the quality of research and teaching at their institutions by attracting young, talented, international scientists. We acknowledge that every case is different, but encourage universities that are building strong programs through internationalization of the faculty to consider the needs of families of incoming foreign researchers, and actively support dual-career professional couples.

How to cite: Perez, L. and Bücker, M.: Moving from Latin America to Germany: Culture shock and challenges faced by a geoscientist family, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-16743, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-16743, 2020.

Science has a diversity problem, and engineering sciences are no exceptions. While equality and diversity issues are gaining attention and progress is being made, tackling discrimination and creating an inclusive environment remains an open challenge. Women, people belonging to minority groups and people with disabilities are under-represented in higher academic ranks, which may discourage early-career researchers of these groups to pursue a career in engineering sciences. Conscious and unconscious bias, insecurity in how to intervene in inappropriate situations, amongst other things, compromise both the potential of research groups and the well-being of individuals.

We will present the outcome of a one-day workshop that will be held in Bristol on the 2^nd of April 2020: Equality in Engineering.  This is the "spin-off" of an event we organised last year for water scientists at the national level (UK), which attracted a lot of interest and where we were asked to organise an event specifically for PhD students in Engineering. Therefore, the workshop aims at educating and engaging Engineering PhD students on equality issues. PhD students had the opportunity to express their interests on specific topics on an online survey. Thus, we will invite speakers at different career stages to talk about problems related to 1) Work-life balance (e.g. parenting & maintaining a career in academia), 2) The importance of role models and lack of leaders from minority groups and 3) unconscious biases and micro-inequalities. The discussions will be followed by a practical training session on race/ethnicity, equality and privilege. Finally, a group discussions session will be held aiming at identifying major issues related to equality in engineering, which still restrain an inclusive academic environment and ideas on how to overcome these issues. Moreover, during this session participants will have the opportunity to exchange ideas and reflect upon the things highlighted during the previous sessions.

We aspire that the outcomes of this discussion can serve as a call or guideline for future actions, both at the local scale and at the institutional level (e.g. larger research organisations such as the EGU). We also hope to initiate or follow-up on discussions during the EGU General Assembly as we regard overcoming equality-related issues in our society as an ongoing process.

How to cite: Coraggio, E., Cairnes, T., Giani, G., Gnann, S., Kiraz, M., Noacco, V., Pianosi, F., Pregnolato, M., Sarailidis, G., Stein, L., and Wang, L.: Equality in Engineering-outcomes of a workshop (Bristol 2020), EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-18013, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-18013, 2020.

Here we present data of the presence of women in the Italian university system in the field of geosciences in the last two decades. The official open sources we used to depict this scenario are those provided by MIUR (Italian Ministry of School, University and Research) and Alma Laurea. In the investigated interval some positive trends have been observed as for instance the increase in the number of female full professors from 9.9% to 18.5% and in female associate professors from 23.6% to 30.8%. However, these changes are still too slow, especially for full professors. A peculiarity of the Italian system is the recent creation of a new professional figure introduced by the new Italian Law no. 240/2010 that essentially is a tenure-track associate professor position (hereafter called RTD-b). Among RTD-bs the gender imbalance is an obvious concern seen that only 26% of these positions are occupied by female researchers and even more alarming if we considered the virtual no gender gap at Ph.D. level.

Looking in detail at the different fields of the geosciences, there are more positive situations as the case of Paleontology and Paleoecology where there is no the gap and Mineralogy where the gender imbalance in associate professors is irrelevant but a gender gap is still present at full professor level. A geographical analysis of our dataset has unraveled that, unexpectedly, the universities localized in the Northern richest industrial areas of Italy show a worse gender imbalance compared to Central and South Italy, though the situation has improved in the 20 years.

This study has thus highlighted that significant and positive changes has occurred in the last 20 years, but an important effort is still needed to further improve the situation in the Italian Universities. Possible actions to promote in order to achieve these results are related to the improvement of the welfare Italian system that could better reconcile family and work, stimulating a reorganization of the work system still currently set on the male model. A final positive thought is connected to the fact that in the Italian university system, there is no pay gap between males and females, something really relevant if compared with the salary gap (between 15% and 30%) present in other richer countries.

How to cite: Nestola, F., Pamato, M., Agnini, C., Salviulo, G., and Barchi, K.: A 20-years dataset of the presence of Women in Geosciences within the Italian University , EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-20409, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-20409, 2020.

The Association of Polar Early Career Scientists is an international organization with membership representing 70 countries. Members are mostly graduate students and post-docs, though 29% are early career professionals in other polar-related career tracks. A survey was sent in summer 2019 to APECS members and polar science community members asking about travel support needs and how respondents’ recent travel was funded. Participants described the perceived availability of different types and sources of travel funding. Availability of travel awards and the expectation that early career researchers would pay for their meeting-related travel out of personal funds varies widely between countries, career stage and indigenous status. Substantially higher travel support is often needed to support participants from countries outside the US, Canada, and Northern Europe because of both the higher cost of traveling to typical meeting destinations coupled with lower availability of supplemental or full travel support. This presentation will cover the international patterns in early career travel funding, the utility of travel advances and the importance of making funding decisions eaerly enough for ECRs as a way to promote diversity in polar sciences.

How to cite: Savaglia, V., Bradley, A., Höfer, J., and Eayrs, C.: Survey on early career travel support shows geographic, career stage, and indigenous status inequality in access to polar science events, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-21468, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-21468, 2020.