The session will focus on both obstacles that contribute to under-representation and on best practices and innovative ideas to remove those obstacles. Contributions are solicited on the following topics:
- Role models to inspire and further motivate others (life experience and/or their contributions to promote equality)
- Imbalanced representation, preferably supported by data, for awards, medals, grants, high-level positions, invited talks and papers
- Perceived and real barriers to inclusion (personally, institutionally, culturally)
- Recommendations for new and innovative strategies to identify and overcome barriers
- Gender Equality Plans (GEP) in European host institutions: the good, the bad, and the ugly
- Best practices and strategies to move beyond barriers, including:
• successful mentoring programmes;
• networks that work;
• specific funding schemes;
• examples of host institutions initiatives;
• examples of conferences and meetings initiatives;
Reports on situations that you may have experienced considering recent socio-political changes and attacks on EDI activities are encouraged.
This session is co-organised with the support of the European Research Council (ERC).
Conveners will propose a special issue based on multi-annual contributions of the session, and if accepted, it will be published as a collection of papers within a specific journal or series.
Orals: Fri, 8 May, 14:00–18:00 | Room -2.92
The EGU pride working group has now been running since the 2019 GA (General Assembly). What began as small social events in 2019 and 2020, developed into an online community in 2021 which has, over the past several years, expanded considerably and become the staging ground for an ever growing list of initiatives and activities conducted by members of the EGU Pride group. The bottom-up nature of the community we have fostered means support and experience are never far away. Through this community driven approach we have successfully overseen many initiatives. These include but are not limited to: real and observable changes at the GA (pronouns on badges, rainbow lanyards) and EGU itself (direct lines to the EDI - Equality, Diversity, Inclusion- Committee and attending to the EDI booth during the General Assembly), hosting of webinars (Equality: Tools and Techniques, Inclusivity in Science), blog posts (Queer Quarterly), and an EGU Pride short course, held since 2023, with new conveners drawn directly from the community each year and new invited speakers.
Since its inception, the EGU Pride group has thrived, and continues to grow, spread awareness of challenges of LGBTQIA+ geoscientists, and make real and positive changes to the scientific community in EGU and outside of the union. Here we will detail each of the initiatives we directed, discuss lessons learned doing these activities, and lay out a plan for the future of the EGU Pride group during and between the GA.
How to cite: Davies, H. S., Di Chiara, A., Pandolfi, C., Bellomo, K., Robustelli Test, C., Gayrin, P., and Piispa, E. J.: Seven years of the EGU Pride working group: Progress and challenges., EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-13509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-13509, 2026.
Neurodiversity – the diverse nature of ways individuals experience the world, process information, function, and communicate – is a paradigm that has been gaining broader acceptance and traction. The neurodiversity movement supports the self-advocacy of historically stigmatised and pathologised communities, including (but not limited to) ADHDers, autistic, dyslexic, and dyspraxic individuals. Such individuals think and experience the world in ways that do not conform to societal norms and are often referred to as neurodivergent. Neurodivergence further includes other conditions, including bipolar, depression, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, or any other condition that makes individuals diverge from the “norm”, temporarily or permanently. Current estimates indicate that about 15-20% of the global population could be neurodivergent. This amounts to about 3,000-4,000 individuals with specific needs among the 20,000 yearly attendees of the EGU General Assembly.
During the 2025 General Assembly, two networking events on neurodiversity were organised by the authors of this abstract. An online survey was further circulated to capture the experiences of neurodivergent members of the EGU. The discussions in both events as well as the survey results revealed a clear need for neurodivergent participants to be able to connect with each other. This led to the creation of an EGU-wide neurodivergent network, which currently has an online space on Mattermost.
We will present the current activities of the network, which include in particular the organisation of various events and sessions within EGU related to neurodiversity, its goals, and how you can get involved. We will also present the results of the survey conducted during and around last year’s EGU GA, addressing specific challenges that neurodivergent participants can encounter in international conferences. We aim to stimulate a broad discussion on how to raise awareness on neurodivergence across EGU members and better support and include neurodivergent geoscientists in EGU activities.
How to cite: Skinner, C., Clark, S., Bastos, A., Turc, L., Beth, A., and Vasquez, A. C.: Fostering connection and advocacy: Creating a neurodivergent network at EGU, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-13186, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-13186, 2026.
The online seminars, or webinars, provide a virtual space for in-depth discussions on a variety of scientific- and academic-related topics.
Several webinar series were launched amid COVID-19 constraints, providing the opportunity to keep the scientific community united during the challenging times of the global pandemic. Webinars have proven their advantage in overcoming geographical limitations and funding issues for in-person or online conference attendance. Virtual approaches are a powerful tool for promoting open science sharing, improving community networks and fostering virtual collaboration, with broad appeal evidenced by international viewership and institutional ties.
We recommend offering a flexible format, which may include an initial talk followed by interactive Q&A space. Scientific talks can be recorded and published on online platforms that provide a DOI and on YouTube, giving visibility and credits to both early career researchers and leading scientists, as well as providing potential teaching material for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Good practice is to create an unrecorded space for informal meetings, where a relaxed environment is fostered that encourages questions, free discussion, and facilitates mentoring.
With a view to making webinars inclusive, we encourage a balanced selection of speakers, considering gender, career stage and country of origin, to promote the inclusion of minorities. Conveners are also recommended to ensure the correct pronunciation of the names and pronouns of the speakers before the beginning of the webinar.
The live session, however, is as inclusive as the time zones in which the webinar is hosted. Hence, geographical inclusion of live attendance can be achieved by shifting time zones from the eastern and western hemisphere during the year.
Finally, webinar using online platforms with close captions and careful post-production editing with subtitles integration allows for a more accessible material for both non-native English speakers and underrepresented minorities such as hard of hearing and deaf peoples.
Although these options tend not to be used, it is important to open up dialogue on how to make webinars more inclusive and oriented as an educational hub for Earth science studies.
How to cite: Robustelli Test, C., Di Chiara, A., Paterson, G., Milanese, F., van der Boon, A., Bonilla-Alba, R., Cych, B., and Nagy, L.: The inclusivity of online seminars, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19333, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19333, 2026.
Despite ongoing community's efforts to create accessible environments (and ensure equitable opportunities for participation and growth in geosciences) accessibility remains a persistent challenge for underrepresented and underrecognised groups, such as people with disabilities, dyslexia or ADHD. The path towards a fully recognised professional identity often requires self-awareness as well as assertion of one's needs and rights. In this context, accessibility must be understood not only as the removal of physical barriers but also of communicative, sensory and cultural barriers. It therefore becomes a structural element in rethinking the overall geosciences sector.
Today, critical problems remain in educational and academic environments, workplaces, and conferences. Inadequate training of educational and faculty staff, a lack of tools that take a variety of needs into account, and a model of excellence based on standardised skills and performance compromise the establishment of a society that ensures equal participation in the STEM field. To improve the accessibility of the aforementioned environments, systemic strategies need to be adopted, such as the Universal Design for Learning, the creation of multisensory teaching resources, the use of universally understandable visual codes, the promotion of environments that value individual differences, and the ongoing, cross-functional training of permanent and temporary academic staff.
This contribution aims to provide an open discussion on barriers for people with sensorial disabilities, dyslexia, ADHD and colour blindness, showing possible resources aiming for a more inclusive environment.
In this framework, a series of best practices were presented during a cross-disciplinary training day for students and staff of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Turin (Italy). Experts in the field and individuals with first-hand experience discussed the above topics and emphasised the importance of best practices to achieve equitable opportunities for participation and growth in geosciences to all. The aim of this training was to emphasise the importance of raising awareness in academic settings.
A concrete example in the field of geosciences is the development of accessible geotouristic maps, designed with layouts that facilitate attentive orientation, tactile reproductions, videos in sign language, colour-blind friendly palettes, and high-legibility fonts. This approach demonstrates how accessibility is not an add-on, but a design principle capable of improving everyone's experience.
How to cite: Pigozzi, G., Robustelli Test, C., Campus, A., Gambino, F., Bertok, C., Giardino, M., Lozar, F., Montomoli, C., Nerone, S., Pennetta, C., Petriglieri, J. R., Radeff, G., Ravazzano, L., Sabato, L., Simonetti, M., and Dino, G. A.: Accessibility and Geosciences: reality or illusion? , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19456, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19456, 2026.
Students with disabilities, particularly those with visual and orthopedic impairments, remain underrepresented in the geosciences, in part due to structural barriers embedded within traditional geology education. A heavy reliance on visual materials and physically demanding fieldwork limits full participation and reinforce exclusion, despite broader equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts across the discipline.
This contribution presents inclusive teaching practices supported by the National Science Foundation’s GEOPATHS: IN program (Grant Award Number:
2119990) and the University of Georgia’s Presidential Award Program, developed through direct collaboration with students with sensory and orthopedic disabilities. These efforts demonstrate how lived experience can inform effective, evidence-based strategies for reducing accessibility barriers in geoscience education. Two complementary approaches were implemented. First, laboratory activities and assessments were redesigned for students with visual impairments using tactile topographic maps, stratigraphic columns, and various charts and diagrams with Braille descriptions, as well as 3D tactile models of fossils and geologic features. A complete set of assessment questions was developed, and surveys were designed and administered. These materials support hands-on, concept-driven learning that extends beyond visual-only instruction.
Second, accessible field-learning environments were developed for students with orthopedic disabilities using ArcGIS applications, including StoryMaps, Field Maps, and Survey123, supported by structured digital workbooks. These virtual field experiences document geologically significant yet soem times physically inaccessible sites in Georgia and are enhanced with GigaPan panoramic imagery, geologic sketches, thin-section images, site-specific videos, and drone footage. The StoryMaps function as interactive field guides, incorporating narrated audio explanations that contextualize photographs and site descriptions, thereby supporting multimodal learning, accessibility, and spatial understanding.
Together, these initiatives provide scalable and transferable examples of best practices for overcoming accessibility barriers in geoscience education. By expanding participation in laboratory and field-based learning, this work contributes to inclusive excellence and long-term pedagogical change, benefiting not only students with disabilities but also a broader range of learners across the geosciences.
How to cite: Mobasher, K., Rajkumar, A., Washell, C., Kraemer, C., Witherspoon, W., and Flinn, E.: Promoting Inclusive Excellence in Geoscience Education through Accessible Laboratory and Field-Based Learning Environments, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-4555, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-4555, 2026.
Educators routinely draw on contemporary role models and historical figures to introduce concepts and highlight scientific innovations in industry and research. In the geosciences, however, these figures are most often portrayed as white, Western men, a pattern that can negatively influence students’ self-identity and sense of belonging within the discipline. In addition, many students do not see themselves represented within the academic faculty body in terms of cultural background, race, class, gender, neurodivergence and other dimensions of identity. As a result, students may perceive the curriculum as insufficiently inclusive or struggle to envision a future for themselves as geoscientists.
To address these challenges, we are undertaking the Contextualising the Curriculum (CtC) project, a partnership between students and staff across the Earth Sciences and Materials disciplines at Imperial College London. The CtC project aims to examine how and why elements of the curriculum may act as barriers to equality, diversity and inclusivity and how these barriers affect students’ self-identity and sense of belonging.
The first phase of the project involved collecting data through an anonymous questionnaire distributed to undergraduate and postgraduate students in the Earth Science and Engineering (ESE) and Materials departments. Preliminary results indicate that for the majority of respondents, representation of diverse individuals within the curriculum has a positive impact on their sense of belonging. The findings also show that students from a wide range of cultural backgrounds would like to see greater recognition of contributions from underrepresented groups within the curriculum.
The second phase of the project focuses on diversifying curriculum content and resources, as well as developing inclusive teaching strategies. Key initiatives include the creation of an online portal hosting an expanding repository of 'Hidden Figures', and the development of a new CtC module that equips interdisciplinary students across Imperial with inclusive practice skills to implement in their curricula and future careers. In addition, we are enhancing diversity in teaching by inviting academics from minority ethnic backgrounds to deliver lectures and seminars to undergraduate students.
The final phase of the CtC project will evaluate the impact of a contextualized curriculum on students’ self-identity and sense of belonging, providing evidence-based insights into inclusive pedagogical practices in geoscience education.
Beyond its institutional context, the CtC project offers a scalable and transferable framework that can be adapted across disciplines and higher-education settings. By combining student–staff partnership, data-driven curriculum review and practical interventions, the project provides practical guidance and actionable approaches for educators seeking to embed equality, diversity and inclusivity meaningfully within their teaching. This work will be of interest to academics, programme leads and educational developers who wish to evaluate and redesign their curriculum to better support student belonging, engagement and retention, and to foster more inclusive academic cultures within their own institutions.
How to cite: Guillaume, L., Kinoshita-Li, E., Ramnarace Singh, K., Laurent, V., Quazi, S., D'Elia, E., Wade, J., and Riamah, A.: Embedding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Geoscience Education: Insights from the Contextualising the Curriculum Project, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-3926, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-3926, 2026.
Against a broader international trend of declining institutional and political commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives, the EU-funded project Geosphere INfrastructures for QUestions into Integrated REsearch (Geo-INQUIRE, project number 101058518) integrated EDI considerations from its outset. With a total budget of almost 14 million euros and 51 partner institutions, the project set ambitious targets for the participation in training activities: 35% participation from widening countries and 40% female participation. These targets were not explicitly required by the European Commission at the proposal stage, yet were intentionally included to address structural imbalances within the geosciences, particularly in geophysics and in computationally intensive research.
While equality focuses on providing the same opportunities to all, equity requires acknowledging differing starting conditions and structural barriers. Achieving equitable participation proved to be a complex, continuous process. Early project phases highlighted how proposal timelines, particularly submission deadlines during summer holiday periods, can disproportionately disadvantage people with caring responsibilities. This distinction became visible during the project’s implementation phase.
Geo-INQUIRE introduced an Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion Panel (EDIP) at the beginning of the project, with a strong focus on gender balance. The aim was to identify obstacles faced by colleagues and to develop structural measures to address them. EDIP recommended setting explicit targets for female participation across training activities, Personalised Training, and Transnational Access. It further emphasised the need for gender-balanced selection committees. In addition, online question-and-answer sessions were introduced prior to Personalised Training and Transnational Access Calls to lower access barriers and improve transparency.
The implementation process also revealed persistent challenges: Achieving equal representation among invited speakers for workshops and summer schools classically met resistance, often justified by claims of a limited pool of female experts. The active participation of a new generation of internationally recognized female senior scientists supported by explicit discussion of this issue substantially increased female speaker representation, though progress remained uneven across activities. At the same time, the greater visibility of female role models resulted in a disproportionate demand on women’s time and engagement within the project.
Counter-measures for equity-related challenges in work–life balance, particularly for parents of young children: scheduling meetings during childcare hours, avoiding school holidays, offering hybrid formats, providing asynchronous access to recordings and transcripts, and ensuring detailed agendas and advance planning. Working parents often have to rely on long-term planning, and the unreliability of deadlines could reinforce traditional gender roles in the long term. Additional support measures, including on-site childcare, travel funding for children with accompanying persons, and contract extensions following parental leave, remain inconsistently supported in the participating institutions and are not planned in EU contracting obligations.
Overall, Geo-INQUIRE achieved its 40% female participation target, a goal initially considered unrealistic by many. The project demonstrates that increasing gender diversity is achievable and beneficial, but requires sustained institutional commitment, structural adaptation, additional budget and active support from leadership. Gender diversity cannot be accomplished by women alone; it depends on shared responsibility, supportive governance, and a rethinking of how excellence and participation are defined within large-scale international research projects.
How to cite: Weege, S., Christadler, I., Bożek, D., Cotton, F., Dytłow, S., Gabriel, A.-A., Gomez Becerra, M., Hüttges, A., Jalayer, F., Kohler, É., Litwin Prestes, M., Majdański, M., Sandri, L., Strollo, A., Türker-Bakir, E., and Wyborn, L.: Equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives within Geo-INQUIRE - achievements, challenges and good practices, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-14074, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-14074, 2026.
Remote participation in international conferences often comes with significant drawbacks: time zone differences can make participation burdensome, and online networking sessions have not worked effectively for all communities. In addition, intercontinental travel is time-consuming and expensive, and is available only to a small fraction of the global science community. However, sometimes there is a regional cohort big enough to organise a regional hub of the main meeting.
The ESIP July 2025 meeting had a meaningful time zone overlap with the east coast of Australia, allowing for a partial real-time participation in the main event, while allowing local networking at the regional hub. Setting up a regional hub allowed us to participate in the ESIP meeting while engaging with colleagues locally. During the event, we explored what a Hub Hybrid model could look like and captured lessons learned to inform future hybrid events. Our experience and recommendations were fed back to ESIP to support ongoing improvements. In addition, the meeting provided valuable opportunities to network with colleagues across organisations and locations.
The Canberra Hub was a great experiment and learning opportunity that demonstrated the viability of the Hub Hybrid model. With minor changes, this format can be scaled and refined for future events.
How to cite: Klump, J., Kethers, S., and Wyborn, L.: Running a Regional Hub of an International Conference: The ESIP July 2025 Canberra Hub Experience, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-1704, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-1704, 2026.
Silencing of researchers refers to informal or formal actions that restrict what scientists can study, say, publish, or teach. Reasons for silencing can be related to political, economic, or ideological interests. It is widely recognized as a threat to academic freedom and to the public’s access to independent knowledge.
Internationally, climate change research has been one of the topics most often targeted with silencing attempts. In the Finnish context, one branch of the polarized climate change discussion has revolved around forest management and use. In 2024, the national broadcasting company Yle brought up a story about silencing attempts of both individual researchers and academic institutions by forestry companies and their lobbying organizations but also by policymakers.
The equality and work wellbeing group at the Institute of Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR) of the University of Helsinki, Finland, wanted to find out how much our researchers have faced silencing attempts or exterior pressure, how it has affected them, and how they have reacted. We designed a short survey that was sent to all staff members.
We received a total of 55 answers (about 20% of the staff members). 13 respondents had personal experiences of pressure or silencing. In the majority of these experiences, the attempted suppressing came from within the academia, although a few reported silencing attempts also came from the public administration, private sector, and social media.
Reactions of the respondents who had experienced silencing or pressure varied from self-censorship and giving in to the pressure to having a dialogue with the source of the pressure. Discussions with peers were considered important.
In the survey, we also asked the respondents to suggest actions to make our work and research community stronger against such pressures. Three kinds of actions were suggested. First, education on the topic, focusing especially on early-career scientists and non-Finnish speakers. Second, provision of resources and tools for individual researchers, for example a guide for identifying this kind of pressure, common guidelines for responding to silencing attempts, as well as easy and anonymous channels for reporting. Third, introducing institutional policies and enhancing scientific culture, for example strengthening mentorship practices and peer support, and more ambitious promotion of open and honest science.
We presented the results of the survey in our institute’s weekly seminar. We had also three experts of experience sharing their stories, discussions in small groups, and an external expert’s note by a representative of the national committee for public information.
In conclusion, carrying out this survey was helpful for getting an idea of what kinds of silencing attempts our researchers experience and how common it is. It is clear that the consequences of this are serious for both the individual targeted scientists and the integrity of science. We need to respond as a research community, and we now have good ideas about how to do that.
How to cite: Lauri, K. A., Mauranen, A., Dukat, P., Bäck, J., Vesala, T., Atashi, N., Karppinen, L., Keronen, P., Lehtipalo, K., Li, X., Lintunen, A., Moisseev, D., Mukkala, J., Nieminen, T., Rantanen, R., and Ylivinkka, I.: Exploring Experiences of Silencing and Exterior Pressure among Climate and Atmospheric Scientists, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-18449, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-18449, 2026.
HAPPY 10th ANNIVERSARY to this long-standing session that has given platform to so many voices and inspired studies that have floodlighted an uncomfortable reality. The description for this session invites abstracts pertinent to many dimensions within the topic of equality, diversity, and inclusivity. Bravo to the convenors session description which includes the invitation: “Reports on situations that you may have experienced considering recent socio-political changes and attacks on EDI activities are encouraged.” One of our deepest holes and most challenging items within EDI is the courage to publicize personal experiences, and yet, this is one of the most powerful fronts available to us. The perpetrator is betting their victims will remain silent, based on fear of Revenge, Retaliation, Retribution, Requital and Reprisal, what we dub the R-Quintic factor. Telling the most recent chapter in my story puts fear where it belongs – on the perpetrator.
We learn about a university department head, whose actions against a female scientist escalated from harassment to verbal and attempted physical abuse, to plotting and carrying out contamination of her lab facility, to ultimately firing her and her research team without cause. The latter action left another female professor without the lab facility she depended on for her research, thus forcing her departure, and left a new female assistant professor without the collaborating lab partnership she planned on. The university failed to act and protect. Three years later, a federal warrant was filed for the female scientist’s arrest by the university police. She was jailed on re-entering the US. She thought it must be something related to EDI, or perhaps the word “climate” in her publications. A criminal lawyer readily assembled the facts and proved unlawful arrest. The case was dismissed and sealed. Here we discuss how the university’s failure to act and protect served to further embolden a bully.
How to cite: Stein, H. and Hannah, J.: Failure to Act: Second Verse, A Little Bit Louder and A Little Bit Worse, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-22919, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-22919, 2026.
Scientific conferences are vital for academic career progression, offering opportunities to present research, build professional networks, and foster a sense of belonging within the scientific community. However, conferences often lack diverse representation, particularly in terms of gender diversity in visible and key roles. Barriers such as limited funding, lack of hybrid or virtual participation options, absence of childcare facilities, and unawareness of conference organization can exclude underrepresented groups. Even when diverse participants attend, equal participation and reception are not guaranteed, reflecting broader issues within geosciences.
While anecdotal evidence suggests a “chilly climate” for minority groups at conferences, systematic observational data on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have only recently begun to be collected in the field of geosciences. Inspired by Lefebvre & Bernhard’s work presented at EGU (2024), this study documents gender diversity and inclusion at the 2025 Dutch Earth and Environmental Sciences Conference (NAC). Over two days, a team collected observational data using a digital survey designed based on previous studies.
We tested eight hypotheses derived from scientific literature: 1) lower visibility of female participants in key roles; 2) fewer senior female scientists due to the “leaky pipeline” effect; 3) higher male participation in geological sessions and higher female participation in environmental sciences; 4) more inclusive language used by female presenters; 5) lower confidence among female speakers; 6) dominance of question-asking by male, especially senior, participants; 7) greater control exerted by male chairpersons; and 8) systematic barriers hindering equal participation despite organizers’ intentions.
Our findings confirmed hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. The “leaky pipeline” was evident, with fewer than one-third of senior scientists being female, whilst female scientists make just about the largest group in the early career stages. Senior male participants dominated questions and discussions, particularly in larger groups, while early-career women asked fewer questions than expected, despite their significant presence in the audience. The importance of EDI policies and intention-setting by organizers was clear, as NAC 2025 prioritized diversity in presenters and included EDI workshops. However, field-wide dynamics still limited inclusivity, especially for younger female participants.
To address these issues, we recommend lowering barriers in Q&A sessions through technology, training chairpersons to recognize bias in selecting questioners, and providing hybrid participation and childcare facilities. We welcome discussion on whether these findings resonate at other EU conferences and on further methods to formalize EDI observations in scientific literature, including funding opportunities.
Lefebvre, A. and Bernhard, R.: Diversity at a Small Geoscience Conference, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-9557, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-9557, 2024.
How to cite: Cox, J., Verberne, M., and Venema, T.: Changing the Chilly Climate: Observations on Gender Diversity and Inclusion at a Geoscience Conference in the Netherlands, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6512, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6512, 2026.
Women have traditionally been underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the United States (USA), including soil science. They have also typically been paid less than men to do the same jobs. This study was undertaken to explore gender equity within the soil science faculty at colleges and universities in the USA. It used information available online through university and other publicly accessible websites. The percentages of faculty by gender are for 2023, while faculty salary data is for 2022. We found that overall, soil science faculty were approximately 70% men and 30% women. There was considerable variation among subdisciplines, with 50% of soil biologists being women but only 20% of soil physicists. Women made up about 53% of instructors, which is typically a non-tenure track position. Women also had their highest percentage of the faculty at the lowest academic rank that is typically tenure-track, assistant professor, at about 42%, and their lowest percentage of the faculty at the highest academic rank, professor, at about 21%. Only 18% of department chairs were women, well below the overall percentage of women on faculty and showing a clear trend of decreasing representation by women at increasing levels of the academic hierarchy. Overall, women were paid significantly less than men. However, there were no significant differences by academic rank. Women were paid less than men at land-grant universities, but there was no significant difference in pay by gender at non-land-grant universities. Overall, the salary study indicates women are paid less than men because of the lack of women at the higher levels of the academic hierarchy, rather than differences in pay at a given level. Therefore, it is important to support women in their career advancement to close the gender pay gap among soil science faculty.
How to cite: Brevik, E. C., Liu, X., and Sadeghpour, A.: Gender Diversity Among Soil Science Faculty in the United States: Representation and Pay of Women, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-7973, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-7973, 2026.
Over recent decades, strides have been made towards increasing the representation of underrepresented groups in geosciences. Nevertheless, notable disparities remain in prestige academic roles, defined here as journal editorial boards, conference organizing committees, and society boards, particularly concerning gender and geographic diversity. Focusing on the subdiscipline of coastal geoscience and engineering, this study evaluates current gender and geographic representation in these prestige roles, measures the progress rate in female representation, and explores strategies to close diversity gaps. Our findings indicate that women and individuals from the global south are underrepresented in these roles compared to their presence in professional society memberships or journal contributions. Although the representation of women in prestigious roles often showed improvement in 2024 compared to 2016, it still falls below the average representation of women in 2024. If current trends persist, only 20% of journal boards are projected to attain gender parity within the next ten years, while over half may regress or take over a century to achieve parity. Survey results reveal substantial variability in recruitment practices, with few organizations actively prioritizing diversity through efforts to achieve geographic representation and gender balance. We leverage these findings to provide actionable recommendations for improving recruitment strategies for prestige roles, stressing the importance of diversity as a catalyst for reduced bias, enhanced creativity, and increased rates of innovation. Ongoing monitoring of minority group representation within academic prestige roles is required to document the success of initiatives to secure continued progress towards equitable representation.
How to cite: de Vet, M., Power, H., Brideau, L., Yates, M., Palermo, R., Velasquez-Montoya, L., and Wargula, A.: Assessing Gender and Geographic Diversity Progress in Coastal Geoscience and Engineering Prestige Academic Roles, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-9718, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-9718, 2026.
As research funders and scholarly publishers move towards making research data more accessible and reproducible, the need has emerged for data sharing policies that respect a basic attribute of many data: the community in which they originated and/or may describe. In 2023, a partnership was formed between leaders from the Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance, ENRICH, Te Kotahi Research Institute, the American Geophysical Union, and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) to convene scholars, publishers, editors, and metadata experts to develop guidelines for the scholarly publishing ecosystem to implement the CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. For over two years, a community of 100+ participants came together to create the Guidelines for Indigenous Data Governance in Scholarly Publishing, a freely available and first of its kind tool. We'll share the recently published Guidelines, key recommendations, and how you can help drive collective impact by adopting it in your role(s) as researcher, author, reviewer, editor, publisher, and community member.
How to cite: Giampoala, M., Jennings, L., Russo Carroll, S., Anderson, J., Hudson, M., Taitingfong, R., Carpenter, T., Stall, S., Vrouwenvelder, K., Amin, J., Hanson, S., and Ricci, M.: Announcing the Guidelines for Indigenous Data Governance in Scholarly Publishing, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-8077, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-8077, 2026.
Current initiatives at the European and international level have emphasised the opportunity of shifting to more responsible research assessment, such as those related to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) since 2012 and the more recent efforts in the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) since 2022, to introduce improvements that address the diversity of research products and careers.
In the Coalition, the thematic Working Group Towards an Inclusive Evaluation of Research (TIER) aims at: advancing gender equality, intersectionality and diversity through better research assessment; ensuring inclusive and bias-mitigated processes in the evaluation of research quality; and developing training programs for institutions and evaluators. CoARA WG TIER is coordinated by the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy; it counts approximately 80 members from around 35 EU and non-EU countries.
In particular, the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology of Italy (INGV) joined CoARA to reinforce the value of the diversity of products, results, and practices that constitute the geoscientific research carried out in the Institute. By adhering to the principles of the Agreement of Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA), INGV supports a global reform of the scientific endeavour that moves from purely competitive to a collaborative and more inclusive one. INGV joined TIER as well, to benefit from shared data and best practices to mitigate gender bias in evaluation processes, and more generally, to improve the implementation of the principles of diversity and inclusion in its policies.
To give an example, in research assessment, systematic biases may occur when evaluation criteria do not account for the career paths of individuals. For instance, maternity or health leaves are often not considered in the quantitative evaluation of scientific production; accidental confirmation biases may arise when evaluators lack sufficient information about the candidates or valorise stereotyped attitudes. The thematic working group TIER is committed to identifying the causes of such biases and to formulating actionable guidelines to counteract them.
So far, TIER: has worked on five case-studies in Europe and UK to collect current statistics on gender distribution in science and more than 30 best practices already adopted both in Research Performing Organizations and Research Funding Organizations; collected a set of references for communication and training on gender bias, including videos and on line materials; realized a survey to individuals to test the self-perception of bias in evaluation, and is preparing another survey to institutions. A dissemination tour is in preparation in different countries, with the support of the CoARA National Chapters, in order to disseminate recommendations for new and innovative strategies to identify and overcome barriers in research assessment. INGV is going to implement TIER suggestions as foreseen in its Action Plan, and to support TIER dissemination tour via the co-chaired Italian National Chapter for the next two years.
How to cite: Rubbia, G., Penati, S., Coniglione, M., Montagna, C., Tondi, R., Carosi, A., and Ingv, G.: Supporting inclusive research assessment: the CoARA WG TIER perspectives, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-14311, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-14311, 2026.
Research groups in non-Anglophone countries are often highly international, multilingual work environments with a predominant use of English but also a strong role of the local language(s). It is important that international staff and students are given possibilities and support for learning the local language(s) to facilitate their integration within the research group and society. Also, personnel without sufficient local language qualifications are often excluded from work opportunities such as teaching, outreach activities, giving presentations, and high-level positions where all or some of the meetings are often held in the local language(s).
At Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR), University of Helsinki, Finland, we have introduced a language agreement, drafted by members of the scientific community, to support learning and communication in Finnish. The aim of the language agreement is not to force the use of Finnish, but to agree on common practices that will ensure a safe space for language learning for both international staff and native Finnish speaking colleagues, create opportunities and support for language learning in work settings, and take individuals’ different needs, aims and interest for language learning into consideration. A few examples of items listed in our language agreement:
- The unit accepts the use of multilingual resources so that even within a sentence, speakers can use words from different languages, depending on how they can best express their meaning.
- Everyone can/should encourage, but not force, others to speak in Finnish. For example, it is appropriate to ask, at the beginning of a meeting or coffee break, if the conversation should be in Finnish. The agreement to keep the meeting in Finnish can be revoked at any time.
We encourage other international research groups to adopt language agreements as a practice to promote fairness and decrease linguistic obstacles for international researchers.
How to cite: Vehkamäki, H., Taipale, D., Moisseev, D., Atashi, N., Dukat, P., Karppinen, L., Keronen, P., Lehtipalo, K., Li, X., Lintunen, A., Mukkala, J., Nieminen, T., Rantanen, R., Vesala, T., Ylivinkka, I., and Lauri, K. A.: Language agreement as a tool to support learning of local languages in international research groups, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19197, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19197, 2026.
The 2023 Union Symposium (US 3) titled "Challenges and Solutions to Increasing Accessibility, Representation, Recognition, and Diversity of European Countries in the European Geosciences Community" focused on the need for diverse representation of European geosciences and geoscientists within the European Geosciences Union (EGU). Its goals were to raise awareness of underrepresented countries in the EGU structure and to explore the barriers and cultural differences that lead to minimal participation compounded by an even lower level of involvement in decision-making.
During the symposium, it was observed that certain countries, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, were significantly underrepresented; specifically, only 1.3% of editorial positions in EGU journals were occupied by members from these nations, despite their substantial contributions to the scientific community [1]. Similar percentages were [2] and are still observed in all other groups within the EGU structure, starting from participants up to EGU division presidents.
Since the symposium, EGU journals have implemented multiple measures including open editor calls, the introduction of reviewer self-nomination forms, and dedicated peer-reviewer training for early career scientists. Moreover, in 2025 an innovative and inclusive article processing charge scheme, offering corresponding authors from European economically disadvantaged countries a 50% discount, and authors affiliated with institutions in Research4Life-eligible countries the opportunity to publish for free. However, the number of submissions from these countries remains very low. As authors gradually become reviewers and, eventually, editors, such observed developments within the editorial boards are understandable.
To promote participation of underrepresented groups from Central and Eastern Europe at EGU General Assembles, the Roland Schlich Travel Support scheme was also revisited. Since 2022 it contains a separate category of European economically disadvantaged (EED) countries, which aims to accommodate 30% of all travel supports requests. The list of EED countries contains Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. However, the number of requests from participants from these countries remains low and the allocated budget has never been fully used.
Here, we aim to revisit the editorial board statistics of EGU journals as well as the full EGU structure to evaluate the efficiency and impact of strategies implemented since the event. This ongoing study will reassess the geographical distribution of the affiliation of all EGU volunteers, comparing the latest data with our previous findings. In addition to quantitative analysis, this study incorporates the perspective of one of the authors, an EGU participant and Eastern Europe–based researcher, to contextualize the factors influencing the limited engagement of researchers from Central and Eastern European countries.
[1] Timar-Gabor, A., Matenco, L., Vilibić, I., Stadmark, J., Popp, A., Didenkulova, I., Conley, D. J., Wingate, L., Ervens, B., and Jesus-Rydin, C.: How inclusive is the EGU? Editorial boards of EGU journals show a disbalance in European countries of affiliation, EGU General Assembly 2023, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7603,
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7603
[2] Matenco, L.: Understanding the complex east-west relationships in the European geoscience research landscape, EGU General Assembly 2020, Vienna, Austria, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13587,
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13587
How to cite: Timar-Gabor, A., Matenco, L., Stadmark, J., Popp, A., Didenkulova, I., Conley, D., Wingate, L., Ervens, B., and Jesus-Rydin, C.: Revisiting inclusion: analyzing changes in the different volunteer groups within the EGU structure (2023-2026), EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-11892, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-11892, 2026.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a global scientific society with 40,000 members, has a strong track record for advancing and championing inclusive science practices under its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming. However, such inclusive science efforts have faced increasing scrutiny and challenges, especially over the past year in the United States, based on shifting governmental directives and reduced funding. This presentation will discuss these challenges as well as AGU’s progress and strategies for advancing an inclusive scientific culture despite interference. We will spotlight the history of AGU global inclusive science programming over the past 10 –years, including the work of the AGU Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee. We will explore how AGU and its partner organizations are navigating governmental policy shifts, while supporting marginalized and underrepresented communities in STEM and simultaneously embedding inclusive practices into scientific programming, membership engagement, and governance structures. The presentation will also include tips and leading practices on how individuals and organizational entities can remain resilient and adaptive while continuing to serve as champions for equity, accessibility, and belonging within the scientific enterprise.
How to cite: Williams, B., Edwards, A., and Lachance, J.: Advancing a Welcoming and Inclusive Science Culture in a Changed and Challenging Environment: Commitments Based on Ethical Practices and Organizational Values, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-5595, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-5595, 2026.
The European Geosciences Union (EGU) is the leading organisation supporting Earth, planetary and space science research in Europe, upholding and promoting the highest standards of scientific integrity, open science and open access research. EGU’s vision is to realise a sustainable and just future for humanity and the planet through advances in Earth, planetary and space sciences.
The EGU awards and medals programme acknowledges distinguished scientists every year for their exceptional research contribution to the Earth, planetary and space sciences. Furthermore, it recognises the awardees as role models for the following generation of early-career scientists, encouraging geoscience research.
Except for EGU council and award committee members everyone (including non-EGU members) is eligible for receiving an EGU award. Nominations need to be submitted by EGU members online by 15 June every year. Each EGU medal or award is selected through a rigorous assessment of the candidates and their merits through the respective committee. The procedures for nomination, selection of candidates and the time schedule are described in detail on the EGU website.
EGU is committed to recognizing scientific excellence providing equal opportunities. The processes and procedures that lead to the recognition of excellence must be transparent and free of biases. However, establishment of clear and transparent evaluation criteria and performance metrics to provide equal opportunities to researchers across gender, continents and ethnic groups can be challenging since the definition of scientific excellence is often elusive.
The purpose of this presentation is to share the experiences and efforts of the European Geosciences Union to ensure equal opportunities. The presentation will showcase data and statistics to provide constructive directions towards the objective of offering equal opportunities to researchers from diverse demographic backgrounds.
How to cite: Nenes, A.: Equality of opportunities in EGU recognitions: The EGU Awards Committee experience, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-23195, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-23195, 2026.
To foster dialogue and exchange experiences on the matter of equality, diversity, and inclusion within the Earth and Environmental Sciences community in the Netherlands, we (the EDI Committee of the Earth Sciences Department at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) organized the first Earth Sciences for All (ESFA) event. Our EDI Committee is a grassroots initiative formed in 2022 following worrying survey results that highlighted well-being and social safety concerns within our department. Since the founding of the EDI Committee, we have promoted fieldwork safety, (trans)gender safety, inclusivity, decolonising science, and provided active bystander training with the aim to establish a more equitable work environment.
The ESFA event brought together scientists from diverse scientific disciplines, backgrounds and career stages. The programme featured an interactive keynote lecture on decolonizing Earth and Environmental Sciences (titled: “Rationality, relations, and power: the other side of boundaries”), a panel discussion on effective engagement in EDI initiatives, and interactive workshops on improving fieldwork safety, intersectionality, and creating structural change. Throughout the event, we actively collected insights, experiences, and anonymised data from participants during the discussions and workshops. Here, we reflect on the lessons learned during the ESFA event and the challenges faced in building tangible strategies for more inclusive academic and professional research environments. The lessons learned from the ESFA event serve as a foundation for developing practical, community-informed strategies to make Earth and Environmental Sciences more inclusive for all.
How to cite: van Gerrevink, M., Román de Miguel, F., Cullen, N., Elliott, K., Lippmann, T., Menthon, M., and Beniest, A.: Building a more inclusive research environment: reflections from the Earth Sciences For All event., EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-1044, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-1044, 2026.
Parenting philosophies differ across countries and cultures; however, for married researchers raising children in Japan—particularly female researchers—participating in academic conferences while their children are young can pose significant challenges. This is because, on average, men's participation in housework and childcare in Japan is significantly lower, resulting in an uneven burden on women for child-rearing. Although the employment rate for Japanese women aged 22 to 44 is 82% (2024), women still bear the brunt of much of the household labor. For example, Japanese men spend less than one hour per day on average on housework and childcare, while women spend about four times as much, regardless of their working hours. It's a significant disparity.
The Geological Society of Japan (JGS) has provided a childcare facility at its annual meetings since 1998 to support participation by members in the child-rearing generation. The Japan Geoscience Union (JpGU) also began offering a childcare facility at its meetings around the same time.
Following a decline in the number of users, the JGS discontinued its on-site childcare facility and began referring users to nearby private childcare facilities.
Prior to the spread of COVID-19, JpGU also supported the participation of researchers with children by providing childcare rooms at conference venues and later assisted attendees from nearby childcare facilities. However, this support ceased due to the spread of COVID-19.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, men were encouraged to participate in housework, but women researchers experienced increased burdens from household labor, resulting in reduced research activity (JpGU 2020 Survey Results*1)
After the COVID-19 pandemic subsided, JpGU began offering the following support to members with children: 1) Support for online participants. Assistance with costs for hiring childcare providers or placing children in childcare facilities during online participation. 2) Setting up childcare rooms at conference venues. Furthermore, starting with the 2025 Meeting, 3) Support for after-school childcare is also provided, limited to Sundays.
To promote a shift in men's attitudes and encourage their participation in childcare in Japan, the Japanese government has set targets for increasing the rate of men taking parental leave (50% by fiscal year 2025 and 85% by fiscal year 2030). As a result, while the parental leave uptake rate in 2018 was 6.2% for men and 82% for women, the rate for men has surged to 30.1% in 2023 and 40.5% in 2024. Women consistently remain in the 80% range regardless of the fiscal year. This outcome is the result of the government's enhanced salary compensation policy for parental leave and the expansion of incentive programs for male employees taking parental leave at workplaces (which do not exist for female employees taking parental leave).
The JpGU-AGU Joint Meeting 2026 (24-29 May) offers hybrid participation for researchers unable to attend in person, and childcare services (by advance reservation) will be available at the conference venue. We strongly encourage those planning to attend JpGU while caring for children to use these services.
1*:https://sites.google.com/jpgu.org/jpgudiv/index/divevent/covid-19%E3%81%AE%E5%BD%B1%E9%9F%BF%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%BB%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B1%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88
How to cite: Rie, H. S. and Sachi, W.: Initiatives by Japanese Geoscience Societies to Support Young Researchers with Children , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-8741, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-8741, 2026.
This presentation reviews the development of Disaster Women’s Studies and initiatives for promoting diversity in Japan. Disaster Women’s Studies is an academic field that analyzes disaster experiences from the perspectives of sex and gender, with the aim of elucidating issues embedded in disaster response, recovery, and disaster-prevention policies. Whereas conventional disaster research has primarily focused on natural hazards and infrastructure, Disaster Women’s Studies pays close attention to how inequalities rooted in everyday life and social structures become visible and intensified under disaster conditions. In particular, it examines the challenges faced by women and individuals in diverse social positions during evacuation, access to support, and post-disaster recovery processes, thereby promoting respect for diversity and social inclusion.
The emergence of this field can be traced to the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011. In the aftermath of the disaster, it became evident that the needs of women, older adults, children, and other groups were insufficiently reflected in evacuation shelter management and support systems. In response, Disaster Women’s Studies was proposed as a new interdisciplinary perspective integrating gender studies, sociology, and disaster research. Emphasizing the perspectives of those directly affected, scholars have sought to theorize and systematize knowledge derived from practice. Today, universities and research institutions actively engage in research and education on gender and disaster, providing a theoretical foundation for more equitable and inclusive disaster prevention and recovery policies.
Against this backdrop, Saitama University will establish, in April 2026, the first master’s program in Japan to bear the title “Diversity Science.” The program will be housed within the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences and aims to develop an interdisciplinary framework for research and education that connects the social sciences with disaster science, including perspectives from the earth sciences.
Diversity Science is an academic field that scientifically examines how forms of diversity—such as gender, age, disability, and cultural background—shape societies and organizations, and seeks to apply these insights to practical problem solving. Rather than focusing on single attributes, it emphasizes contexts in which multiple differences and inequalities intersect (intersectionality). Through an ongoing dialogue between theory and practice, the program aims to cultivate professionals capable of contributing to the realization of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
How to cite: Oguchi, C.: The Development of Disaster Women’s Studies and the Emergence of Diversity Science in Japan, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21769, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21769, 2026.
Participating in geoscience conferences are a vital activity in the career of a researcher. International conferences are hubs for accessing hot-of-the-press scientific findings and provide valuable opportunities to consolidate collaborations and develop new networks across every career stage.
However, attending international geoscience conferences represents a significant financial and logistical cost. Opportunities for researchers to access funding to participate in an international geoscience conference varies widely across countries. In addition, researchers that have caring responsibilities, disabilities or experience temporary unemployment may face additional financial barriers to participation as legitimate expenses resulting from the conference attendance cannot be reimbursed from research project budgets or from their affiliated research institutions. This places a strain on geoscientists facing financial hardship, and leads to the exclusion of researchers from career-defining meetings. Furthermore, many geoscientists require more practical solutions to enable participation at an international conference, either through the provision of child care facilities onsite or supporting essential caregivers to accompany EGU participants.
Over the last 10 years the EGU has steadily built up a range of structures and funding mechanisms to support the international geoscience community participate in the EGU general assembly https://www.egu26.eu/authors/financial_support_and_waivers.html. Every year the EGU is supporting hundreds of geoscientists through the Roland Schlich Travel Support and the EDI Participation Support Scheme. These support schemes primarily provide financial assistance to scientists in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences who encounter significant financial barriers that prevent them from participating to the EGU General Assembly. In addition, the EGU is providing a number of practical solutions including a popular and easily accessible free childcare facility onsite and providing flexible support for accompanying caregivers of participants.
The EGU continues to listen attentively to the needs of it’s members and is actively facilitating engagement and soliciting feedback in dedicated environments (the EGU EDI Booth), networking events and advisory groups specifically addressing Accessibility and Inclusion. Through these diverse initiatives EGU will strive to actively mitigate barriers to inclusion at the EGU General Assembly.
How to cite: Wingate, L., Hart, J., Turton, J., Eicker, A., Steffen, R., and EDI Committee, E.: Actively mitigating barriers to inclusion at the EGU General Assembly, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19473, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19473, 2026.
The EGU recognises the importance of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) as a crucial foundation for scientific research. Since it’s foundation in 2021, the EGU EDI Committee has implemented a range of EDI initiatives to remove financial barriers to inclusivity and supported the geoscience community at large to create events and tools that promote equality and diversity within the EGU, in collaborations with members, grass-root networks and sibling geoscience organisations. The EDI Committee’s priorities are to:
- raise awareness of the value of EDI within the geoscience community;
- provide constructive suggestions and ideas to the EGU Council that promote EDI within the organisation, and the geoscience ecosystem and;
- organise sessions, webinars, networking events and focussed workshops dedicated to EDI issues either as part of the EGU General Assembly, or other international conferences and meetings.
In recent years, two landmark achievements for EDI@EGU are (1) the Champion(s) for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Award that recognises the excellent contributions of individuals or teams developing initiatives that put the principles of EDI into practice and (2) a new EDI Participation Support Scheme created to reduce the financial barriers to inclusion and participation at the EGU General Assemblies.
The visibility of research and scientists is essential for the spread of ideas, knowledge and new results in addition to creating countless opportunities to consolidate collaborations and grow new networks. Presenting or convening at conferences can therefore further your career. Another highlight for a scientific career can involve your work and contributions being recognised by peers and nominated for a scientific award. Geoscientists that receive awards and medals are often considered role models in their fields. The EGU curates a diverse portfolio of geoscience awards to which suitable candidates can be nominated https://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/. Previous research on academic awards has shown that men are nominated more often than women, but is this true for the EGU awards as well?
In this presentation we will show how the distribution of presenters and participants at the EGU General Assemblies has evolved since 2015 using demographic data related to gender, age and geographical affiliation. In addition, we will present the gender distribution of nominations and award winners for EGU awards and medals from 2023 to 2026.
How to cite: Stadmark, J., Steffen, R., and Wingate, L.: Status and development of the demographics of EGU General Assemblies’ presenters and EGU awardees, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-5317, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-5317, 2026.
The European Research Council (ERC), Europe’s premier funding agency for frontier research, views equality of opportunities as an essential priority and a vital mission to ensure fairness in the review process. The ERC monitors various demographic data yearly on every call and has taken actions to tackle imbalances and potential implicit and explicit biases.
Demographic gender and geographical distribution data on external reviewers is presented. External reviewers are experts who support ERC evaluation panels by externally reviewing proposals in their fields of specialization. The analysis focuses on the rates of nomination and invitation of these experts, as well as rates of acceptance and completion of the reviews. The data is presented by call, scientific domain and panels. In the current framework programme (Horizon Europe, 2021-2027), 24.2% of nominated external reviewers were women, 75.6% were men and less than 1% were non-binary. Acceptance and completion rates are only marginally higher for women in respect to men. When it comes to geographical distribution, the first 15 most invited countries take up 89% of the whole invitations, and 88% of the finished reviews.
Furthermore, data on requests by applicants for extensions to the PhD eligibility window are included. The ERC allows applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant schemes who comply with certain conditions (e.g. parental leave, motherhood, long term illness, clinical training and civil disturbance), to submit proposal beyond the end date of the normal PhD eligibility window. These circumstances and conditions constantly evolve. In this way, to comprehend better and monitor these requests, the ERC recently started an in-depth analysis of such data, gathered between 2021 and 2025. The data are disaggregated by year, gender, and by grant type. The analysis shows that there is a clear disparity between women researchers and men researchers when requesting extensions, both in terms of numbers and circumstances.
The ERC is aware that working to ensure inclusive excellence and equality of opportunities is a never-ending task. This presentation analyses the institutional efforts, procedures and critically discusses the results so far.
How to cite: Jesus-Rydin, C., Fariña-Busto, L., Harvey-Kelly, R., Sofia Alessandri, S., and Jansen, E.: Inclusive excellence at the ERC: demographic data on external reviewers and impact of eligibility extensions, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-5706, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-5706, 2026.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (hereafter EDI) are ranking high in the agenda of scientific associations and researchers. At a global level, EDI is recognized as a propeller for scientific development. In the past 15 years, EDI was promoted in geosciences with several initiatives that adopted a broad vision, thus addressing several forms of diversity: gender, geographical, ethnic, career stage, and many others. These developments followed the enthusiastic initiative of scientists that joined into groups and task forces of scientific associations, under an international enthusiasm and excitement. However, alongside with the positive and impressive results achieved, EDI was challenged with questions and criticism, essentially related to reconciling equality with the preservation of diversity: how to ensure equality of opportunities while avoiding to suppress diversity, and in particular cultural and scientific diversity? The latter compelling question should stimulate an open discussion on how to move forward, for the benefit of the global diversity of people and research visions. This contribution is an attempt to articulate the discussion on scientific and transparent grounds, by assuming that any form of diversity that is legally, enthusiastically and ethically expressed is a valuable contribution to resolve the key barriers to EDI improvements, the global challenges of geosciences and seeking a peaceful future.
How to cite: Montanari, A.: Why a new global vision is needed for equality diversity and inclusivity in the geosciences, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-9127, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-9127, 2026.
Overseas fieldwork often presents a range of complex challenges which are exacerbated by differences in language and culture. The need to precure essential equipment or undertake unanticipated repairs can threaten the success of an overseas field campaign, particularly where access to specialist retailers is not possible. Here we underline the importance of working with overseas partners and trusting in their abilities to acquire genuine or appropriate substitute components for geomorphological research. The work highlights the significant cost and logistical benefits of undertaking fieldwork in this way as opposed to the time and monetary costs associated with shipping. Furthermore, we demonstrate how local partners can be crucial in facilitating access to healthcare where university approved suppliers fail.
How to cite: Ahmed, J., Johnson, J. E., Worne, S., and Wolstenholme, J. M.: I know someone who knows a guy, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-21278, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-21278, 2026.
In the boreal-subarctic zone, seasonal variability has a significant influence on the planning and execution of (fluvial) fieldwork. During winter, freezing temperatures, short daylight hours, and snow conditions make fieldwork challenging. In spring, snowmelt-induced flooding and freeze–thaw processes must be carefully considered when planning and conducting field activities. In the summer, daylight is abundant, but insects can pose a considerable challenge; moreover, climate change has increased the frequency of heatwaves. In autumn, daylight hours decrease, and weather conditions may change rapidly from warm to cold, with early snowfall sometimes occurring unexpectedly.
Overall, successful fieldwork in fluvial environments requires careful consideration of numerous factors, including logistics, clothing, safety, wildlife, engagement with local communities, and communication. This presentation outlines best practices for fieldwork planning and highlights key pitfalls that can impact the success of fieldwork. Although the fieldwork experience presented here is drawn from Finland and focuses on fluvial environments, the practices discussed are broadly applicable across the boreal–subarctic region and to a wide range of research fields.
How to cite: Lintunen, K. and Blåfield, L.: Planning and conducting successful fieldwork in the boreal–subarctic region - What to take into account during different seasons?, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6761, 2026.
Fieldwork is widely regarded as a pedagogical cornerstone of geoscience education. However, traditional models of field teaching often privilege physical endurance and prior familiarity with field environments, reinforced by long-standing fieldwork cultures that can unintentionally exclude some students and staff. In recent years, the geoscience community has re-evaluated what effective and inclusive fieldwork should look like, and how learning outcomes can be achieved through more flexible and supportive approaches. This shift has been driven not only by a growing awareness of the physical, psychological and cultural barriers to field participation, but also by legal and institutional obligations to provide accessible and inclusive learning environments. In the UK context, equality and disability legislation has been a significant driver of change. Internationally, however, the regulatory frameworks governing inclusive fieldwork vary widely, raising important questions for global geoscience education.
This contribution presents a reflective case study based on changes implemented over the past decade within the Earth Science and Engineering department at Imperial College London. Rather than focusing on a single intervention, we synthesise a suite of pedagogical, logistical and cultural adaptations introduced across undergraduate and postgraduate field courses. These include: redesigning field locations and delivery formats; embedding wellbeing and safety training;introducing codes of conduct and clearer communication of expectations; reducing financial barriers; and increasing flexibility in participation and assessment. Complementary measures such as virtual and digital field resources, inclusive teaching teams and student-staff dialogue have further supported diverse learning needs and experiences.
We reflect on how these changes have reshaped our fieldwork from a high-pressure, endurance-based activity into a more inclusive learning environment that values reflection, collaboration and adaptability, without compromising core disciplinary skills. Particular attention is paid to tensions commonly faced by field leaders, such as balancing challenge and support, maintaining academic standards and responding to increasingly diverse cohorts.
Finally, we outline a planned community-wide questionnaire aimed at field leaders across the geoscience community, designed to capture lived experiences of field teaching and perceptions of inclusive practices across institutional contexts. By situating this case study within a broader disciplinary context, this contribution aims to stimulate discussion and knowledge exchange around transferable strategies for designing resilient, inclusive and pedagogically effective geoscience fieldwork.
How to cite: Laurent, V., Passmore, E., Spencer, A., Murphy, A., Day, E., and Colquhoun, R.: Rethinking fieldwork as a learning environment: lessons from a reflective case study on inclusive geoscience field education, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6768, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6768, 2026.
Emerging research in convergence and the science of team science highlights the need for interdisciplinary, collaborative research that integrates ideas and approaches across fields to address society’s grand challenges, as well as the need for social science and humanities research that can clarify the conditions and mechanisms that support effective, productive, and innovative collaboration. In the geosciences, such collaborative work is especially necessary for understanding the processes that lead to geohazards, improving our ability to mitigate their impacts, responding to hazardous events, and training the next generation of scientists. A major component of this work involves collecting geoscience data in the field by teams of scientists from diverse disciplines and career stages and ensuring that knowledge about the data’s context and meaning is shared among those who produce and use it. This raises a critical question: What practices and skills can geoscience teams adopt to ensure equitable participation and build truly collaborative communities during field work? The Community of Practice (CoP) framework has long been recognized as an essential tool for promoting collaboration and discovery in field-based sciences, particularly in the geosciences, yet substantial barriers to participation, collaboration, and the retention of diverse talent persist. In this study, we use qualitative data including pre- and post-reflections, observations, interviews, and focus groups from 19 interdisciplinary, international subduction-zone geoscientists (e.g., volcanologists, geochemists), representing both novices (e.g., undergraduates and interns) and experts (e.g., PIs), who engaged in year-long field activities, to explore how a CoP develops and operates among field scientists. Findings show that early activities that establish shared purpose, trust, and norms, along with structured activities that introduce new members to CoP practices and values, promote the development of a CoP. Additionally, activities that strengthen the CoP’s functioning and evolution such as common practices, coordinated tasks, social infrastructure, and alignment of community norms and structures across the novice-to-expert spectrum, support equitable participation, improved scientific collaboration, and lasting impacts across career stages and demographics. These processes are shaped by how members perceive their roles, contributions, and value (formation of self), as well as by their ability to align with and navigate community norms and structures, negotiate boundaries, and adapt their behavior in response to the CoP’s evolving goals and values. Together, we examine the strengths and limitations of these constructs to develop a field-based CoP framework that helps geoscience teams use flexible, evidence-based practices for collaboration and learning within Communities of Practice.
How to cite: Nyarko, S., Kenderes, S., Yager, S., and Regalla, C.: A Community of Practice Framework for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Field Geoscience Research , EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-69, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-69, 2026.
