GEOSCIENTIST SPOTLIGHTS POSITIVELY IMPACT VIEWS OF THE TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO “DO SCIENCE,” BUT REFLECTION IS CRITICAL

The geosciences have the lowest participation of historically marginalized individuals in science and engineering occupations. Majors frequently discover the field through our introductory courses, and yet the scientists featured in these courses regularly reflect historical stereotypes of scientists (e.g. white, straight, cisgender male). This is one of many potential factors limiting students from seeing themselves as the types of people who “do science.” Scientist Spotlights (Schinske et al., 2016) were developed and originally tested in biology as a tool to feature nonstereotypical scientists and scientific content. As of 2021, few geoscientist-based spotlights were available in the public Scientist Spotlight database. Additionally, while these assignments have been tested in other fields, their impacts in the geosciences, whose intro courses are heavily populated by self-identified non-scientists, are unknown.

We created a dozen weekly “Geoscientist Spotlight” assignments for a Spring 2022 introductory geology course (Smalls et al., 2022). 240 students were randomly assigned to one of four assignment-based treatment groups. Half were provided with personal information about each scientist (e.g. a photo, hobbies), while half were given “non-personal” bios that focused on the scientist’s work. Half again were asked to write a weekly reflection on the types of people who do science. All students were asked to describe “the types of people who do science” pre- and post-semester. These descriptions were coded for the presence of positive and negative stereotypes (e.g. intelligent vs. nerdy), nonstereotypes (e.g. any type of person) and fields of study (e.g. geologist, biologist) following Schinske et al. (2015, 2016).

By the end of the semester, all students were less likely to use fields of study in their descriptions. Students provided with personal information were more likely to use positive stereotypes (p < 0.05). Students writing weekly reflections were significantly more likely to use nonstereotypes, but less likely to use positive stereotypes (p < 0.05). These data suggest that personal information helps students identify more positive, specific ideas about who scientists can be, but explicit reflection is needed in order to communicate nonstereotypes such as anyone can do science.