the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Earth Science for all? The economic barrier to Geoscience conferences
Abstract. Scientific meetings are vital for research development and networking. However, these events often perpetuate unconscious biases and barriers to diversity, particularly affecting ethnic minorities. The future success of geosciences depends on diversity, which enhances problem-solving and innovation through varied perspectives. This study examines the attendance diversity at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly from 2005 to 2024, focusing on the impact of economic factors, distance, and population size on participation. Using publicly available data from the World Bank and EGU, this study finds that gross national income (GNI) is the primary determinant of attendance, with a strong correlation between GNI and participation, especially post-COVID. Distance also influences attendance but to a lesser extent, while population size shows a weak correlation. To improve diversity in academic conferences, we suggest facilitating donations, offering affordable accommodations, establishing additional travel funds, and rotating the conference location. Our actions must go beyond the EGU General Assembly and other geoscience conferences, extending to barriers to inclusivity within our community. By addressing these financial and systemic barriers, geoscience conferences can become more inclusive, benefiting the entire scientific community.
- Preprint
(965 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(8 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Aug 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1653', Collins Gameli Hodoli, 12 Jun 2024
reply
The article is well-written and raises important points. However, I believe the authors could make a stronger case for addressing racial prejudice and the practice of baiting by highlighting the revenue generated by these conferences for Europe, particularly from poor or emerging economies. Additionally, the authors could suggest ways for organisations like EGU to take concrete action beyond bureaucratic measures to prevent the exclusion of participants from certain regions. Finally, the authors should emphasise the importance of conferences that focus on regions like Asia and Africa, as they offer valuable opportunities for knowledge sharing and collaboration. The challenge is not just about funding, as even colleagues with travel support have been denied visas. It is about challenging the colonial mindset that perpetuates inequality and exclusion. I recommend the authors to read this piece and integrate it into the current work --- https://schengen.news/eu-cashes-in-e56-million-from-rejected-visa-applications-from-african-countries/
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1653-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1653', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jul 2024
reply
This manuscript assess the role that GNI, population and distance to the EGU conference impacts attendance in an effort to understand the underrepresentation of some countries' scientists at EGU. The topic and analysis are topical and very interesting. This manuscript will contribute to knowledge of one issue that EGU could work on to improve representation at the conference. I would recommend that the manuscript is accepted after the comments in the attached are addressed.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1653 by Christopher Jackson', Christopher Jackson, 19 Jul 2024
reply
1. L10 – It was initially unclear how scientific meetings “perpetuate unconscious biases”, although this then becomes clear later in the Introduction, i.e., L32-33.
2. L18 – Is this essentially repeating the immediately preceding clause?
3. L22-23 – “…extending to barriers…” sounds a little odd to me. I would rephrase the last part of this sentence, after the comma, to read, “…given they can also help remove barriers to inclusivity in other areas of our community”.
4. L39-41 – This is grammatically a little difficult to follow, so I suggest rephrasing to read, “Some of these problems, such as X, Y, and Z, are urgent, and failure to tackle them will have dramatic negative consequences.”.
5. L62-66 – One of my major suggestions is to make it clearer why these three variables, i.e., what specific hypotheses were you testing? For example, following this list, you could say something like, “We chose distance to assess whether geography was the principal driver of attendance variability, where GNI…etc”. By doing this, I think it would strengthen the paper by making it clear that the variables were not picked arbitrarily.
6. L70 – Could you make it clear if this statement is an outcome of the study *or* something that is obvious, a priori. My view is that it must be the former, rather than the latter, but maybe clarify here what your viewpoint is.
7. L72-74 – I do not understand this sentence, i.e., did you study data from 2005 to 2024, as stated in L63, or did you only study the post-COVID data?
8. L74-77 – I should state that statistical analysis is not my area of expertise.
9. L82 - Why is GNI not shown in Fig. 1b? And why are values <10-5 not shown in Fig. 1b?
10. L83-84 – Where is the stated claim illustrated in Fig. 1?
11. L85-86 – Do you mean that despite having relatively low GNI, the participation of these countries is higher than anticipated? If so, I would maybe state this more clearly.
12. L86-90 – I cannot see a decreasing trend in the red line in Fig. 1b. Can you please clarify where this is shown?
13. L90-91 – Why do you think this is the case? Is it because participants from low-GNI countries can attend virtually at a lower cost? If so, I would state this more clearly.
14. L91 – Why is it ‘unsurprising’? Again, I would make it a little clearer why the observed relationships are strong (or otherwise).
15. L98-99 – The distance to conference line/data, i.e., the blue data points, seemingly plot in the 99% rather than 95% field. Please check.
16. L104 – Again, why is this relationship “as expected”? As for comments 13 and 14, I would consider adding a sentence to explain why the observed relationship (or otherwise) might arise.
17. L148 - See comment 5, i.e., by stating “we would expect to see…” you are implying that you have some sort of hypothesis.
18. L151-153 – Could this be described as “over-representation”, given the opposite is “under-representation”?
19. L170-172 – Could you perhaps use/cite some World Bank data to support this statement?
20. L173-174 – Another major(ish) comment is that the relationship between country-level GNI and the financial status of an EGU attendee is assumed, but not necessarily proven, i.e., a country may have a low-GNI, but an in-country senior scientist may be disproportionately wealthy, to a level comparable to, for example, a student scientist from a higher-GNI country. To be clear, I agree with the outcomes of your study and that, generally speaking, low-GNI countries are directly impacted by financial barriers; however, I think the paper might benefit from at least a brief discussion of some anomalies that may exist.
21. L185-187 – The Geological Society of London has a new EDI committee: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/About/Diversity/EDIA-Committee.
22. L191-193 – Can you maybe rephrase this sentence, making it clearer what ‘p’ means?
23. L204-206 – It is not clear to me how rotating the meeting *within Europe* would help people from low-GNI countries, unless those countries were within, for example, the more eastern or southern parts of Europe, etc. Please clarify how you think this would benefit global attendees.
24. L216 – I would personally avoid the terms “developed” (and “under-developed”), given they are slightly disparaging.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1653-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
162 | 31 | 22 | 215 | 25 | 11 | 11 |
- HTML: 162
- PDF: 31
- XML: 22
- Total: 215
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1