EDI Panel 1 | Appendix 2 | Free-text Comments

What new fact or perspective did you learn that surprised or informed you?

  1. The extent to which colonialism relates to geology in the UK. That other ECRs also struggle with communicating diversity issues to senior staff
  2. Humboldt acknowledged indigenous researchers
  3. actions/behaviour during Caribbean volcanoes emergency
  4. That the issues are deeply set and educators (universities, museums etc) have a large role to play in inspiring and empowering the next generation to become engaged in fighting against ingrained biases
  5. The experiences of many of the panellists reinforces the need to expose UK [physical science] students to the social context of science
  6. How researchers from developing countries/fieldwork countries are still in the situation where their research, contributions and priorities are not acknowledged by western visiting scientists
  7. I had not previously considered just how dependent fieldwork is on a colonial approach to the world, of travelling abroad and appropriating knowledges and resources from the colonized country.
  8. That De Le Beche founded the BGS after the money from his Jamaican plantations was drying up due to the abolition of slavery.
  9. Existing initiatives to address this very issue and which I was not aware of (e..g. INVOLC)
  10. I am pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the reflection and changes ongoing at BGS as described by Katherine Goodenough. I hope other organisations do this too.
  11. Seeing the value of collaboration despite long history of not equal collaboration. Find a common ground/way for an equal collaboration.
  12. I did not know of some existing initiatives to redress the problem
  13. That the majority of senior researchers really don’t know what to say when ECRs face negative backlash for raising EDI issues. This is very disappointing. The last answer was great but the previous ones weren’t encouraging at all.
  14. How the BGS has only recently (last 20 years) started to change its approach to international work
  15. That scientists from rich countries should learn to actively try to help those in less rich ones
  16. The importance of bringing on board all partners’ research interests within projects
  17. The perspective from several panellists on how to structure grant applications + funding requests to ensure partners in developing countries have a say. Sad as it is, I wasn’t actively thinking about this before! Now I will be sure to.
  18. That the BGS has origins linked to a sugar plantation owner
  19. Just how deep-rooted the issues in contemporary volcanology are, and how these can often go unnoticed.
  20. How pervasive the influence of early colonialism is on our current international scientific relations.
  21. How much every panel member agreed on the need for open conversations.
  22. It was really great to hear from Richard Robertson at the University of the West Indies and how he was inspired to go into volcanology!
  23. BGS history
  24. That people who have plenty of experience working in LMI countries, and may have supervised several students from those countries, are oblivious to the racial discrimination these students and their colleagues face.
  25. I was surprised that the role of the British Geological Survey as an agent of colonial expansion, through prospecting and scoping of resources, was not noted more prominently by their representative.
  26. The power disparity between researchers with funds and their ‘partners’ in countries where the research is carried out.

Do you have other suggestions or comments about Panel 1?  (for example anything else you would like to see discussed)

  1. It was great, looking forward to rewatching!
  2. what is the role of gender in increasing inequalities?
  3. What is the remit of VMSG in comparison to IAVCEI? Or Geol Soc? Where are IAVCEI in all of this? VMSG needs to lobby for IAVCEI to be more vocal on these issues too. ECR-Net have some activity but aparent silience from the overarching organisations
  4. Panel 1 worked really well. I liked the mentimeter use to gather questions
  5. I think it’s really important we further understand how geology (especially in the UK) is really grounded in colonialism.
  6. How can we lobby finding agencies so they are more cognizant and understanding of the importance of including local collaborators and to fund them in proposals.
  7. The use of Menti during the session allowing questions to be asked and “endorsed” by participants was excellent. The chairing of the session was also excellent. The range of panellists was also excellent. Thank you to everyone involved.
  8. The role of women (all background) in science and the bias against women
  9. Any research published based on overseas fieldwork with no local participation should be ostracized
  10. Longer discussion overall! 1.5 hours was not enough.
  11. More concrete things – there was a lot of talk, but not many specifics about how to improve things.
  12. I’d like the colonial dimensions of volcanology to explore in more detail (following Dr. Scarlett’s approach). For instance, how does modern volcanology practice reproduce colonialism? I think this is a topic we need to confront openly.
  13. Perhaps allow more time for participants to ask the panel questions
  14. The unanswered question: what now? What can be done to change the current culture? I suggest future panels focus on addressing good practice and potential future actions, instead of being given lots of time to share previous experiences.
  15. It was a really great discussion and I think more discussions like this should continue within all disciplines of study. And I think courses on learning more about the history of geology and colonisation should be offered and compulsory in degrees.
  16. Panel 1 touched on a lot of different aspects that each deserve a session in itself: a) historical links between colonialism and geoscience; b) inclusion of ethnic minorities born and raised in the UK; c) neocolonial behaviour in today’s research
  17. I think all HEIs would benefit from discussing effective ways to decolonise curricula and their own structures.
  18. Please note that I answered the last set of questions the wrong way around (5 = high priority, 1 = low priority)