PERSPECTIVE

Revisiting perceptions and evolving culture: a community dialogue on
women in polar research
Sandra Starkweather a, M. Seagb, O. Leec & A. Poped

aCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA; bScott Polar Research Institute,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; cInternational Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA;
dInternational Arctic Science Committee, Akureyri, Iceland

ABSTRACT
Women have made outstanding contributions to polar research in recent decades, though
full engagement may be hindered by persistent inequities, including notably the prevalence
of workplace harassment. Remote field settings, such as those pervasive in polar research,
have been identified as particularly susceptible to cultures of harassment. It was therefore
timely at the Polar 2018 Open Science Conference in Davos, Switzerland, to convene a
discussion focused on women’s perspectives and experiences. A panel discussion—“From
Entering the Field to Taking the Helm: Perspectives of Women in Polar Research”—took place
on 20 June 2018 and featured five women undertaking work from marine biotechnology to
organizational leadership, across career levels. Over 300 conference attendees joined the
lunchtime panel. The panellists’ perspectives on historical barriers, current challenges and
future prospects revealed that while challenges persist, experiences vary greatly. Audience
engagement underscored the need to sustain dialogue at polar meetings, to bring visibility to
the statistics related to workplace harassment and to encourage polar science organizations
to assume leadership on promoting equitable workplace culture.

KEYWORDS
Gender; equity; harassment;
culture; science; Open
Science Conference

ABBREVIATIONS
IASC: International Arctic
Science Committee; SCAR:
Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research

Background

Women’s participation in polar research has grown
steadily as cultural and institutional barriers to their
participation have decreased (Rosner 2009; Hulbe
et al. 2010; Carey et al. 2016). However, in spite of
decades of progress, including women’s ascension to
leadership at key institutions, challenges persist. The
high prestige of work associated with remote field
sites, long vessel cruises and sustained studies within
northern communities has often been accompanied by
high barriers to female participation. Twentieth-
century policies barring women from polar field sites
(Seag 2017) have left a legacy of field cultures centred
around masculine norms (Rosner 2009; Glasberg 2012;
Carey et al. 2016). Today, as hard barriers are falling,
these norms need revisiting, and expected codes of
conduct in field sites must be clearly articulated and
enforced (Starkweather et al. 2017). A growing body of
evidence, including the SAFE study (Clancy et al. 2014),
has recently underscored the much more damaging
impact of harassment directed disproportionally at
women participating in fieldwork, ranging from the
rare but most explicit forms of violence to subtle but
more pervasive gender harassment. Polar research is
not immune to these threats to safety and inclusivity
(Bell & Koenig 2017; Waldman 2018).

Recently, Nelson et al. (2017) have documented
the prevalence of career exits due to negative experi-
ences with scientific field programmes, particularly
those that do not enforce codes of conduct. Other
scholars have emphasized that female scientists can
fail to achieve the “visibility” of male peers, even
when their work is equally impactful (e.g., Oreskes
1996). The combined effects of these stressors may
account for a greater portion of the so-called “leaky
pipeline” effect (Goulden et al. 2011), describing the
progressive loss of female talent from the science
labour pool, than has been previously understood
(SRT 2018).

Last month, the US National Academies of
Science, Engineering, and Medicine released the
results of a sweeping, multi-year study on harassment
in the sciences (NASEM 2018). Their study found
that between 20% and 50% of female students in US
science, engineering and medicine reported having
experienced harassing behaviour perpetrated by staff
or faculty; more than 50% of faculty also said they
had experienced harassment. LGBTQ women and
women of colour were more likely than their straight,
white counterparts to have been harassed, and
women of colour were more likely to report feeling
unsafe because of their gender. The study also recog-
nized a problematic dearth of data.

CONTACT Sandra Starkweather sandy.starkweather@noaa.gov Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of
Colorado, UCB 216, Boulder, CO 80309, USA

POLAR RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 37, 1529529
https://doi.org/10.1080/17518369.2018.1529529

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7369-1891
http://www.tandfonline.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17518369.2018.1529529&domain=pdf


This dearth of data is true in the polar regions too,
but the recent work of Nash et al. (2018) provides an
important first look. Their survey of researchers in
the Australian Antarctic Program revealed that 64%
of female participants experienced harassment, and,
like the SAFE study, found that these incidents go
largely unreported. Meanwhile, media reports con-
cerning female geologists working under the US
Antarctic Program (Scoles 2018) put a harrowing
face on how such harassment can proceed unchecked
in remote and isolated locations. Data from non-
Western countries and data on Arctic research are
even scarcer. Given these facts, a fresh round of
examinations of polar work cultures is called for.

The International Polar Year 2007–09 opened
many doors to researchers from around the world
(Krupnik et al. 2011), including women, so it was
timely at the Polar 2018 Open Science Conference
for a discussion focused on women’s experiences in
polar research. The panel discussion—“From
Entering the Field to Taking the Helm: Perspectives
of Women in Polar Research”—took place on 20 June
and featured five women in disciplines ranging from
marine biotechnology to organizational leadership to
history of science. While the “Taking the Helm” event
centred on the perspectives of women, it was impor-
tant to the organizers to avoid essentializing
“women” and further to recognize that gender is non-
binary. Further, it was important to recognize that
many intersecting identities can result in overlapping
challenges that require specific attention. Panellists
represented plural intersecting factors spanning
career levels, research discipline, professional roles
and national and ethnic identities.

From the event

The event drew more than 300 participants represent-
ing 32 countries, who engaged in a vibrant, interactive
dialogue with the panellists following interview ques-
tions by independent journalist Hannah Hoag. Hoag’s
questions explored aspects of the panellists’ experiences
including: landmark achievements; challenges related to
retention, mentoring and the #metoo movement in
science; and redefining leadership.

Hoag introduced the discussion by acknowledging
her surprise at the relatively recent history of
women’s inroads to polar work and the leading
achievements of some of the panellists. HongKum
Lee, a former director of the Korean Polar Research
Institute, was among the first women to assume the
leadership of any polar institute. During her tenure as
director (2007–2013), she oversaw the completion of
Korea’s first research icebreaker, Aaron, and the Jang-
Bogo Antarctic Research Station in Terra Nova Bay.
Lee noted that her position empowered her to budget
for appropriately sized field equipment for female

participants—a key safety advancement. Susan Barr,
IASC’s first female leader, characterized her field
experiences as overwhelmingly positive, even as she
was blazing trails. While taking on a role that
required extensive fieldwork in Svalbard did expose
her to improperly sized equipment and scepticism
related to her abilities to operate firearms or outboard
motors, she met these hurdles with a sense of
humour. Morgan Seag, a doctoral candidate in geo-
graphy studying women’s advancements into
Antarctic research, shared that her work was inspired
by senior female researchers like these “who changed
my conception of what my future could look like. I
had assumed that my sixties and seventies would
involve hammocks and grandbabies—these powerful
women [in Antarctica] showed me how narrow that
idea was. I could [like them] be camping on the ice
sheet, making discoveries.” Seag went on to observe
that the Antarctic culture for female researchers is
still mixed in spite of these pioneers’ contributions. In
response to an audience question about sexualization
of women in the field, she noted the enduring pre-
valence of comparing and “rating” female field team
members on their attractiveness across field sites on
the continent.

Challenges are by no means limited to field sites.
Arctic researcher Colleen Strawhacker, an archaeolo-
gist who works with Indigenous communities in both
Alaska and the American South-west, recounted her
own experiences with bullying during proposal pre-
paration at the hands of senior male investigators,
which caused her to note: “You can either fight for
a seat at the table or build your own table. Both are
exhausting.” While she stood her ground against the
bullying behaviour, she fears the type of retaliation
that could await her through anonymous community
processes like proposal or publication review. These
anxieties were echoed by an audience member who
had taken similar positions.

These and other challenges prompted Hoag to
turn to the panellists for their ideas about how to
move forward. Chandy Nath, the new executive
director of SCAR, shared her view that “we need to
reimagine what leadership looks like”. She and others
acknowledged that there can be an unconscious
image in our heads when we think about polar
research, i.e., the frosty beard, and that it takes delib-
erate efforts to broaden that view. Or as others have
noted: “If you aren’t being consciously inclusive, you
are likely being unconsciously exclusive.” All panel-
lists agreed that early career researchers should not
let perceptions about barriers stand in their way.

Audience questions honed in on and amplified
those sentiments of the panellists focused on barriers
and challenges. Multiple audience comments also
focused on the low numbers of men present in the
audience, who accounted for about 5% of the

2 S. STARKWEATHER ET AL.



participants. Even if stemming from positive inten-
tions, such as to allow women to have their own
space, a lack of male participation in these conversa-
tions was viewed as particularly problematic related
to the road towards creating more inclusive polar
research cultures.

The event generated a strong response across social
media platforms, where hundreds—both inside and
outside the room—participated in the virtual conversa-
tion following the hashtag #PolarWomen2018, even-
tually reaching a social media audience of more than
800 000 Panellists’ perspectives were augmented
through the development of an Instagram effort elicit-
ing input through a series of questions. The Instagram
account has grown a steady following from zero to over
600 followers in 10 weeks. The resulting Women in
Polar Science compilation, which currently numbers
50 profiles, continues to enrich our understanding of
the plurality of experiences and achievements of women
in polar research, and highlights the potentials and
aspirations of a generation of women poised to impact
the world. Reflected in these profiles are the joys of
collegiality and accomplishment in positive work envir-
onments; the importance of believing in yourself, fol-
lowing your instincts, supporting colleagues and not
letting biases stand in your way; and a clear love of
polar environments and people.

Moving forward

The innovations required to address the next genera-
tion of polar research questions surpass the bounds of
the physical, chemical or biological sciences alone.
Future challenges will require systems thinking,
inclusive collaboration and the dismantling of socially
enmeshed barriers to progress. What better way to
prepare a generation of scientists to meet the chal-
lenges posed by rapid ecological change, much-
needed interdisciplinary work and the paradigmatic
shift towards knowledge co-production than through
raising cultural awareness and equity within our own
ranks?

The overwhelmingly strong presence of early
career researchers at the event suggests that there
will be a continued demand to sustain inclusivity
dialogues; some senior researchers were dismayed
that “we still need to have these conversations”.
These types of generational differences may reflect
shifting norms, or they may reflect a subtler selection
bias whereby certain types of adaptive strategies, nat-
ural to some and quite foreign to others, improve
survivorship in research settings (e.g., McNutt 2017;
Willenbring 2018). As Cheryl Rosa of the US Arctic
Research Commission notes in her Instagram profile,
“[i]t would be nice not to need any strategy” to
succeed as a woman in polar research. Will the future
impact of women in polar research be limited by their

ability to strategize around gender barriers? Or is our
community willing to evolve culturally, to dismantle
those barriers and broaden our image of who con-
tributes to scientific excellence and how?

The answer lies in part with our institutions, includ-
ing international science bodies like IASC and SCAR.
Cultural shifts take time and deliberate remedies. The
US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine study recognized that solutions to harassment
in the geosciences will require a “system wide change to
the culture and climate”. System-wide change of this
type starts with dialogue, an important objective of the
“Taking the Helm” event. Yet without stronger partici-
pation from male colleagues, system-wide change will
not advance. IASC executive secretary Allen Pope, a co-
organizer for the event, asked on Twitter: “Do we have
sufficient ‘buy-in’ to the staggering statistics about har-
assment to make a change?” Each of us who has per-
sonally experienced such harassment might reflect on
the value of sharing these experiences more openly to
build such buy-in. Further, we need to promote the
types of culture and climate surveys that reveal the
experiences of researchers in our proximal settings,
including those who wish to remain anonymous.
Polar institutions like IASC and SCAR could play key
roles in supporting surveys to establish a baseline of
experiences against which we could formulate remedies
and measure progress. In the meantime, it is imperative
that organizations like the Forum of Arctic Research
Operators and the Council of Managers of National
Antarctic Programs continue to grow a role for them-
selves in preventing and responding to sexual harass-
ment in polar field settings. A beneficial starting point,
as raised through the social media commentary, would
be to help make acceptable norms of behaviour well
understood and enforced.

Indigenous participants were notably under-
represented at Polar 2018 for a variety of reasons
and absent from the panel itself. Strawhacker chal-
lenged the audience to investigate why these meetings
are not more relevant for, or accessible to, Indigenous
communities. Returning to the starting premise that
intersectionality provides a valuable frame for cul-
tural examination, co-organizer Renuka Badhe, of
the European Polar Board, noted during closing
remarks at the event that there are many other min-
oritized groups who would benefit from an expand-
ing dialogue about inclusivity in polar research.
Organizations like IASC and SCAR should consider
ways to better integrate inclusivity dialogues into
their meeting programmes, encouraging all attendees
to participate, and to develop and enforce codes of
conduct for their own organizations.

If there was a unifying aspect of the “Taking the
Helm” event, it was a shared aspiration to see a
future for polar research that is ever more diverse,
respectful and inclusive for all, one that supports a

POLAR RESEARCH 3



vibrant community of researchers through all career
stages and enables them to rise to the height of their
potential. Our collective efforts to better understand
polar regions are impaired when we are not inclu-
sive, and, at this critical time, we can’t afford that.
Let’s work together to evolve a more positive work
culture for all so that the adaptive strategies that
women, people of colour and others have developed
to cope with discrimination can become a thing of
the past.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our sponsors for their support of the
“Taking the Helm” event: Antarctic and Southern Ocean
Coalition, Arctic Research Consortium of the USA, IASC,
International Association of Cryospheric Sciences,
International Glaciological Society, Ocean Expeditions,
Ltd., Tinker Muse Prize, USA Arctic Research Commission
and an Anonymous Private Donor. We would also like to
thank our moderator, panellists and volunteer coordinator
Meredith LaValley.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.

ORCID

Sandra Starkweather http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7369-
1891

References

Bell R.E. & Koenig L.S. 2017. Harassment in science is real.
Science 358, 1223.

Carey M., Jackson M., Antonello A. & Rushing J. 2016.
Glaciers, gender, and science: a feminist glaciology fra-
mework for global environmental change research.
Progress in Human Geography 40, 770–793.

Clancy K., Nelson R., Rutherford J. & Hinde K. 2014.
Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): trainees
report harassment and assault. PloS One 9, e102172,
10.1371/journal.pone.0102172.

Glasberg E. 2012. Antarctica as cultural critique: the gen-
dered politics of scientific exploration and climate change.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goulden M., Mason M.A. & Frasch K. 2011. Keeping
women in the science pipeline. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 638, 141–162.

Hulbe C., Wang W. & Ommanney S. 2010. Women in
glaciology, a historical perspective. Journal of Glaciology
56, 944–964.

Krupnik I., Allison R., Bell R., Cutler P., Hik D., López-
Martinez J., Rachold V., Sarukhanian E. & Summerhayes
C. (eds.) 2011. Understanding Earth’s polar challenges:
International Polar Year 2007-208, summary by the IPY
Joint Committee. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of the
Arctic.

McNutt M. 2017. Welcome in our field: attracting the best
and brightest. Plenary session talk at 2017 Aquatic
Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, HI.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine) 2018. Sexual harassment of women: cli-
mate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences,
engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.

Nash M., Lea M.-A., Shaw J., King M., Bax N. & Nielsen H.
2018. Findings from a national survey on gender equity
in Australian Antarctic Science. Poster presented at the
Polar 2018 Open Science Conference, 15–26 June,
Davos, Switzerland.

Nelson R., Rutherford J., Hinde K. & Clancy K. 2017.
Signaling safety: characterizing fieldwork experiences
and their implications for career trajectories. American
Anthropologist 119, 710–722.

Oreskes N. 1996. Objectivity or heroism? On the invisibil-
ity of women in science. Osiris 11, 87–113.

Rosner V. 2009. Gender and polar studies: mapping the
terrain. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
34, 489–494.

Scoles S. 2018. The harassment problem in scientific dream
jobs. Outside Online. Accessed online at https://www.
outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-
scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d&utm_
medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=
tweet on 7 September 2018.

Seag M. 2017. Women need not apply: gendered institu-
tional change in Antarctica and outer space. The Polar
Journal 7, 319–335.

SRT (Subcommittee on Research and Technology; 115th
Congress) 2018. Hearing—a review of sexual harassment
and misconduct in science. Accessed online at https://
science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-
research-and-technology-hearing-review-sexual-
harassment-and on 7 September 2018.

Starkweather S., Derry K. & Crain R. 2017. Leveling the
field: the role of preparation, leadership, and networks in
empowering minoritized participants. Presented at the
American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 11–15
December, New Orleans.

Waldman M. 2018. Boston University rejects geologist
David Marchant’s appeal of termination. Scientific
Community, Science. Accessed online at http://www.
sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/boston-university-rejects-
geologist-david-marchant-s-appeal-termination on 7
September 2018.

Willenbring J. 2018. The elephant in the women-in-science
room. Speaking of Geoscience. Accessed online at https://
speakingofgeoscience.org/2018/06/29/the-elephant-in-the
-women-in-science-room/ on 7 September 2018.

4 S. STARKWEATHER ET AL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
https://www.outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d%26utm_medium=social%26utm_source=twitter%26utm_campaign=tweet
https://www.outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d%26utm_medium=social%26utm_source=twitter%26utm_campaign=tweet
https://www.outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d%26utm_medium=social%26utm_source=twitter%26utm_campaign=tweet
https://www.outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d%26utm_medium=social%26utm_source=twitter%26utm_campaign=tweet
https://www.outsideonline.com/2300656/harassment-problem-scientific-dream-jobs?utm_content=bufferf4f3d%26utm_medium=social%26utm_source=twitter%26utm_campaign=tweet
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-review-sexual-harassment-and
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-review-sexual-harassment-and
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-review-sexual-harassment-and
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-research-and-technology-hearing-review-sexual-harassment-and
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/boston-university-rejects-geologist-david-marchant-s-appeal-termination
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/boston-university-rejects-geologist-david-marchant-s-appeal-termination
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/boston-university-rejects-geologist-david-marchant-s-appeal-termination
https://speakingofgeoscience.org/2018/06/29/the-elephant-in-the-women-in-science-room/
https://speakingofgeoscience.org/2018/06/29/the-elephant-in-the-women-in-science-room/
https://speakingofgeoscience.org/2018/06/29/the-elephant-in-the-women-in-science-room/