JOHN HENRYISM: THE IMPACTS OF TOXIC RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS ON WELL BEING AND SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY

The term “John Henryism” refers to a) the strategies that are developed to exist in a toxic environment and b) the cost of those strategies on the individual. Many traditionally excluded individuals in STEM disciplines have experienced racism, discrimination, bias, harassment, retaliation, bullying, unequal treatment, and isolation, both in academia and the non-academic workforce. These issues can be compounded in the field sciences (e.g., geoscience and ecological disciplines) where there is often a requirement to conduct research in remote locations. A common consequence for many who experience both acute and/or prolonged toxicity are work-related health problems (physical, mental, relational, etc.), which increase stress, lead to exhaustion and impact productivity.

The STEM enterprise as a whole should be concerned about how John Henryism might be impacting scientific productivity and certainly in the geosciences where field research can be critical to career success. In many forms, John Henryism could negatively impact the socialization of incoming students, alter the trajectories of early career scientists and ultimately diminish the development of the 21st century STEM workforce. Identifying common experiences is a key first step to characterizing this issue in the context of the geosciences. Once characterized, the following approaches could be worthy areas of investigation to address issues related to John Henryism: 1) combat isolation in order to network affected individuals, 2) bring assessment and research to the forefront to focus on the short and long-term impacts, particularly the health impacts, of STEM climate on traditionally excluded groups in academia and the workforce, 3) encourage allyship to create more supportive and inclusive research spaces, and 4) identify mechanisms to strengthen existing efforts aimed at increasing the retention of traditionally excluded individuals in STEM.