Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T21:21:30.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023

Sarah M. Hamylton*
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Hannah E. Power
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
Shari L. Gallop
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Waikato, Waikato, New Zealand Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, Tauranga, New Zealand
Ana Vila-Concejo
Affiliation:
Geocoastal Research Group, Marine Studies Institute, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Sarah M. Hamylton; Email: shamylto@uow.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Women face disproportionate challenges while undertaking coastal fieldwork. We draw on 18 responses that specifically raise fieldwork issues from an international survey about perceptions and experiences of gender inequality for those working in coastal sciences to discuss two common themes. These themes are barriers to fieldwork participation and challenges for women working in coastal field settings such as boats or working on beaches, including discrimination and sexual harassment. We suggest five priority behavioural and policy changes to improve the fieldwork experience for women in coastal sciences: (i) publicise field role models and trail blazers, (ii) improve opportunities and capacity for women to undertake fieldwork, (iii) establish field codes of conduct, (iv) acknowledge the challenges women face in the field and provide support where possible, and (v) foster an enjoyable and supportive fieldwork culture.

Information

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Disrupting the narrative: Women fieldworkers operating equipment, carrying gear and fixing engines.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR1

Comments

See correspondence with Jess Jones and Professor Tom Spencer

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I would like to commend the authors on tackling and publishing on this topic. I highly agree that it is important to study the challenges that women face in coastal field work and I agree with many of the suggestions and comments stated. Nevertheless, I recommend major revisions. This recommendation is based on the following concerns:

- Quotes and survey results were extracted from a subset of responses. It is unclear how this subset was chosen and is defined, and if bias is introduced through it.

- From the current manuscript, it is not possible to assess how representative the results are of the community as a whole, and are there also positive examples for programs, investments, and improvement? I understand that the discussed issues should not occur at all, but this question is relevant since it also provides a measure of if solutions or improvements are in place in parts of the community and how they specifically could look like.

- Recommendations are very general and maybe not surprising. A great contribution would be to discuss actual guidelines. For example, the example of the satellite phone is mentioned, but I believe many and most expeditions will carry this technology with them to-date. The bigger question is what is a usage agreement that is reasonable and appropriate: should there be one rule or case-by-case agreements? how would they look like? And how is access managed? Another example is related to boat facilities. How can this be added if at the same time vessels may be restricted in size for accessibility of sites? Or should there be a maximum time on vessel before landing with access to facilities are provided? Many of these solutions will take significant financial investments that will unlikely happen within a short time or maybe at all. What can be solutions in the mean time? What are acceptable improvements?

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Authors: Hamylton, Power, Gallop, Vila-Concejo

The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences.

This is an important, timely contribution that investigates the fieldwork experiences for woman in coastal sciences. Inputs were provided from participants of the 14th International Coastal Symposium and from a questionnaire posted on the Women In Coastal Geosciences and Engineering website (total of 314 responses). The suggestions for improvement are well described based on the study surveys, recent workshops and reports. This perspective article is well written, and I only found two typos i.e. Line 11, challenges, no caps and Line 88, others.

The authors acknowledge that “the challenges women face in the field involve intersecting aspects of identity including, but not limited to, race, religion, class, sexuality and gender identity.” A limitation of this study is that no details were provided on this in the article; of the 314 responses how many different countries were represented, how many different races, religions?

In South Africa, we have safety and security issues and for coastal field work we prefer a male present. Rape and murder are a threat in several urban as well as remote areas resulting in us no longer sampling some estuary sites or abandoning night zooplankton sampling because too dangerous. “Threats to a vibrant research community include a paucity of local funding and growing safety issues for field ecologists. Safety of field researchers is a particular problem in KwaZulu-Natal, but also in urban environments around the coast, with research and monitoring activities having been curtailed in some areas”. (Adams et al. 2020, DOI: 10.2989/16085914.2020.1751980).

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

The primary author is a colleague at University of Wollongong. We are working on a research project funded by the Australian Research Council focussed on mangrove sustainability in Australia. We have co-authored a manuscript that is currently in review. The topic of this manuscript does not overlap with the work I undertake with Sarah Hamylton and I do not anticipate that there will be any bias provided in my review because of this association.

Comments

I enjoyed reading this commentary on a survey undertaken by WICGE. However, the importance of this paper extends beyond my enjoyment - it is critical that discussions of women undertaking coastal fieldwork be discussed with a broader audience than women if change is to occur. And this change is crucial given the growing contribution of women to coastal geoscience and engineering.

Below I have outlined some suggestions that may improve the manuscript:

1. The manuscript is written in the traditional scientific format (intro, methods, results and discussion), and I found that this left me wanting to see what analyses of the survey were being undertaken. In addition, the methods did not detail the survey questions that preceeded the opportunity to comment. Personally - I do not think this is problemmatic as the survey comments should be made publicly available, but to manage reader expectations I think it would be better to present the paper as a commentary rather than in the traditional scientific paper format. I suggest that the best way to address this is to change the headings (e.g. Methods --> Approach, Results and discissions ---> Synthesis). I acknowledge that the capacity to adjust headings may be dependent on the author guidelines for this journal.

2. As the paper is focussed on fieldwork experiences in coastal research, I would have liked to see either more connection to the existing literature regarding fieldwork in geosciences (there is a lot of information emerging), and/or more explicit discussion about why women undertaking coastal fieldwork may need attention beyond what is undertaken more broadly in the field disciplines of geoscience and engineering. I suspect that the latter is more suited to this journal. I am aware that there are hints at this in the comments (e.g. boating, heavy equipment). I can see this being addressed with an additional couple of sentences in the introduction that includes citations to the existing research on geoscience fieldwork, and emphasising that the survey results allow for the unique experiences in coastal research to be highlighted.

3. The authors have provided a great list of suggestions, but I suggest linking through to some of the existing ‘good’ examples of codes of conduct (there are a few already available online). The Times higher Education did a great article on this a few years ago on this topic (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-develop-code-conduct-ethical-research-fieldwork).

4. I was a bit rankled reading that ‘women should be briefed on practical challenges that may arise’. From experience, women are often more aware than men of the challenges of remote fieldwork, and I suspect men may need some briefing. This could be as simple as developing approaches for toileting (where, frequency, no-questions asked) that is shared with everyone, emphasising inclusive conduct on boats and when using heavy equipment that is conveyed to everyone.

Line 88: ‘other’ should be changed to ‘others’

Thanks for the opportunity to read this manuscript - it was insighful.

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR5

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this Perspective piece to Coastal Futures. As you can see, you have received three reviews on the submission, all of which are very favourable of your work but also raise some points I would like you to consider. More transparency/detail on the data used would be quite helpful, and 2 reviewers also suggested that discussing what is already in place/codes/etc would also be good and I’d tend to agree.

I appreciate you might be quite limited by space, but perhaps this is something that can be discussed as I think it’s important to add that bit of depth to this work to increase its impact even more.

I look forward to the revised version.

Kristen Splinter

Handling Senior Editor, Coastal Futures

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR7

Comments

See response to editors and reviewers

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

I am at the same institution as the lead author and we are involved in various publications and grants. However, I can confirm that this has not influenced my review and feel that I provdied a fair assessment that reflected my lived experiences of being a female in the discipline.

Comments

I appreciated the work presented in this paper. The authors have also taken care to address my suggestions and comments. I can also see that the authros ahve addressed otehr reviewer comments and the paper has now been improved in a waythat reflects my previous suggestion of ‘minor revisions’. I am very happy with how the authros addressed all reviewer comments.

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR9

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I would like to thank the authors for the revisions. I believe most of my previously stated questions and concerns have been addressed. One question remains for me that may also be of interest to other readers: Of the 314 overall responses, do the 17 respondents represented in Box 1 represent all responses to this question (ie, 297 respondents did not provide a short description of the gender inequality experienced/observed) or is this a selection? Would this suggest that 5% of the respondents are willing/able to share experiences of gender inequality in coastal field work, and if not, how many of the total respondents reported having experienced/observed gender inequality during coastal field work?

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR10

Comments

R2 has asked for I think a very interesting clarification if it would be great to address this before considering the paper for publication.

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R1/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR12

Comments

See response to decision letter. Many thanks for you efforts in handling this paper.

Review: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR13

Conflict of interest statement

N/A

Comments

Thank you. I believe my comments have been well addressed.

Thank you for tackling this important topic.

Recommendation: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR14

Comments

I think the paper is a worthy contribution to the conversation on gender equity within the Coastal field and should be published. I noted a few sentences in my final reading that could use your attention I feel.

L60: “ Specifically, all survey responses were evaluated we extracted any answers that mentioned issues” - there is something missing in this sentence.

L76: “ 18 respondents regarding fieldwork-related issues that emerged from seventeen responses” - is it 18 or 17 or am I missing something?

Thanks kindly,

Kristen Splinter

Senior Editor, Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures.

Decision: The challenges of fieldwork: Improving the experience for women in coastal sciences — R2/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.