It’s pride month and we are delighted to feature a post on queer inclusion in fieldwork written by members of EGU’s pride group. Queer Quarterly is the blog series of the EGU pride group, an LGBTQIA+ team of geoscientists engaged to uphold and improve the rights of the community at EGU. This quarterly post is based on the EGU Webinar Uneven Ground 2 on improving fieldwork accessibility for LGBTQIA+ people.
Legal protections for gender and sexual minorities are in flux as we move into new eras and new policies globally. However, against the backdrop of changing socio-political landscapes, efforts across structural levels can increase access and inclusion within academic spaces. This effort for inclusion is particularly pertinent in disciplines that engage in fieldwork and field research, as people may travel to areas with varying protections, may be isolated from support networks, and may face job insecurity. However, considering the needs of LGBTQIA+ fieldworkers requires consideration of LGBTQIA+ community protections broadly. This includes government, institutional, and social protections. When these fail, there are individual actions that LGBTQIA+ researchers, agency workers, and other fieldworkers can take to protect themselves and colleagues, make informed decisions, and maintain autonomy. Importantly, the type and location of fieldwork may create unique circumstances that require nuanced navigation. Here, we outline considerations starting with global concerns and then delve into national, institutional, and personal actions.
Global LGBTQIA+ considerations
The protections for LGBTQIA+ fieldworkers will vary depending on nation and on identity. LGBTQIA+ protections and oppression are based on historic LGBTQIA+ movements and colonisation. When considering LGBTQIA+ inclusion in the sciences, we need a global perspective. First, the structural barriers and exclusion that negatively affect researchers from the Global South – including language barriers, exclusion from high-ranking journals, and lowered citations – will affect LGBTQIA+ researchers from those regions. Some postcolonial governments have repealed or lessened anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, but others have increased LGBTQIA+ persecution, including some enacting the death penalty for LGBTQIA+ people. Broadly, some countries may have anti-trans laws yet protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities, creating variable safety dependent on personal identity, and fieldworkers with intersecting marginalised identities may face further discrimination. It is within this context of variable legal and social protections that we must consider who globally has access to become a scientist as well as where LGBTQIA+ scientists can persist and thrive.
A specific consideration for queer researchers doing fieldwork is whether international travel will take them to multiple nations. This is particularly relevant for oceanic research that may visit multiple countries. If your fieldwork takes you to different countries, understanding how each country’s laws apply to yourself and your team is necessary for fieldwork planning. In some cases, LGBTQIA+ people may decide they cannot join fieldwork in a given country. Similarly, understanding issues that individuals may have with obtaining visas if their passport has an X gender marker should be a component of planning for your team’s travel.
National protections
With national LGBTQIA+ protection heterogeneity across nations, understanding the stability, breadth, and methods for legal protections afforded LGBTQIA+ scientists and fieldworkers is necessary. For example, LGBTQIA+ protections vary depending on state legislation in the United States. Trans protections, including medical care access, are particularly variable by state. This necessitates consideration of LGBTQIA+ protections and resources across governmental hierarchies.
The stability of these protections is also dependent on the methods for how protections are granted. In the US, LGBTQIA+ rights have predominantly been granted through the judicial system and court interpretation of existing laws to include LGBTQIA+ people. This route for legal protections has become relatively unstable, as seen with the reversal of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 [1973]). Despite some legislative action protecting LGBTQIA+ people (e.g., the Respect for Marriage Act; P.L. 117-228 [2022]), there is increasing legislative pressure to limit and prohibit trans identities and access to gender-affirming care. Also, one administration’s executive actions may easily be undone by the following administration. It is within these limitations that we need to approach LGBTQIA+ inclusion and competency, requiring one to be informed on whether protections may be contested or increasingly limited where fieldwork occurs.
Efforts across structural hierarchies
There are efforts that can be enacted across structural and organisational levels and sociopolitical contexts. Although laws may limit what policies organisations or institutions can adopt, there are ways for people in organisations to increase inclusion for LGBTQIA+ fieldworkers. Here, we provide a brief summary of recommendations at different structural levels for fieldwork (institutional, team lead, and individual).
Institutions
Institutions are bound by the laws of their governments and thus may be limited in their ability to provide protections in some cases. However, if laws allow institutions to adopt inclusive policies, there is a range of actions that an institution can take. Some recommendations include helping with gender and name change paperwork, offering health insurance that includes gender-affirming care, having facilities that are gender-neutral or single use, and having financial resources for queer researchers who experience undue hardships due to discrimination, including familial disownment.
However, some of these may be more difficult if laws are not inclusive. Regardless, there are steps that an organisation can take. Institutions should be transparent about the laws and policies of both the institution and where any field work may occur so that employees and students can make informed decisions about safety. Furthermore, institutions can allow gender-inclusive housing options, where shared living spaces can be discussed with employees/students. Institutions can also ensure that medical requirements are met, with refrigeration for medications provided in the field. Also, steps towards safety protocols are broadly applicable, including not sending people into the field alone, maintaining communications, and ensuring that projects have co-leads so that there is not a single person in charge of resources in the field.
These policies do not only benefit queer scientists, but can be framed as benefiting heterosexual couples or families that want to room together, general safety protocols for remote work, and power structure diffusion that is recommended to prevent abuse for women, LGBTQIA+ people, and other marginalized people.
Supervisors
Laws and institutional policies may also constrain supervisors. However, as we move down organisational hierarchies, there is an opportunity for discussions and informal efforts. A major contribution a supervisor can implement is involvement in fieldwork safety planning and discussions. Supervisors can (and should!) advocate for LGBTQIA+ inclusive policies, either framing them as benefiting LGBTQIA+ employees/students or employees as a whole (e.g., non-gender specific housing options may also increase support for families). Supervisors can also ensure transparency about policies and protocols so that employees can make informed decisions.
Specific LGBTQIA+ concerns that supervisors should be aware of include variable identity disclosure and safety risks while in the field. For instance, if fieldwork is being conducted far from home, an employee may feel more comfortable exploring gender or sexual orientation away from the higher-stakes relationships of friends and family. If an employee discloses an LGBTQ+ identity, a supervisor should inquire about when and where they are comfortable using a chosen name or their pronouns. This can help prevent unintentional outing of an employee and, in certain circumstances, ensure their safety.
A unique safety risk for LGTBQIA+ people, including fieldworkers, includes the use of online apps such as Grindr. Although it is not a supervisor’s job to determine what an employee should be doing during their time off, safety protocols should exist for people leaving the field site (e.g., check-ins, phone number for contact). These apps are not inherently unsafe or bad, and can increase connection to local communities. Still, there are also instances of apps being used to entrap, lure, and extort LGBTQIA+ folks, including through organised hate groups. To increase safety, supervisors can enact crew policies that provide estimated times of return and general destination for people leaving the site without invading employee/student privacy.
Finally, fieldwork may be isolating for LGBTQIA+ people. If you are in a supervisory role, and are a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, disclosing your identity may make fieldwork more accessible to employees/students. This requires you as a supervisor to determine if there is a personal risk to disclosure, but, if safe, we encourage being out to increase acceptance. Supervisors can also connect employees to LGBTQIA+ inclusive professional societies to help foster connections and support.
LGBTQIA+ people:
Finally, some steps LGBTQIA+ folks can take to ensure their own safety and success in the field. Safety can be dependent on laws and institutional policies, and if the supervisor is inclusive or not. However, regardless of policy, the reality may be that you are the only LGBTQIA+ person on a field crew, and feelings of isolation may develop. As LGBTQIA+ field researchers, we hope that we demonstrate that the LGBTQ+ community is present in fieldwork and provide some recommendations that we have found helpful throughout our careers. First, we encourage prioritising your safety. Regardless if you take a job in a country with hostile laws, or work for an institution that does not protect LGBTQIA+ identities, there are situations we have had to navigate to maintain our safety.
Deciding to disclose identities is a personal choice, and choosing not to disclose does not remove you from the LGBTQIA+ community. This should not be viewed as hiding, but as maintaining autonomy. It is your decision, and safety is an important consideration. To this end, we have found it helpful to carry something symbolic of our identity with us in the field, something that can remind of the broader community to which we are connected. This does not mean wearing a rainbow pin or necessarily being overt (unless you want to!), but it can also mean carrying something that reminds you of your community. For instance, one of our items was a duct tape-bound copy of Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, which has visited many field sites. Some of our students who have employed this strategy have discussed how it helped them feel in control of disclosure and reinforced their autonomy in the decision to not disclose.
Safety is another consideration, both in general and when conducting fieldwork. For instance, if you wear a binder or other gender-affirming clothing, make sure that it is safe in the context of the work being done. If it is an extremely hot day, prioritise your safety, by wearing something suitable to the field conditions to prevent overheating or other negative physical effects. In addition, the risks outlined about online apps discussed above should be considered as you decide when and where to use the apps. We recommend ensuring that other workers or the supervisor know when you are off-site, the general location you are traveling to, and when you are expecting to be back. Additionally, you should have local emergency contact information.
One issue with online apps that might arise is if someone else on the crew is also using an online app, and this may particularly be an issue if you are in a country that does not protect or outright incriminates LGBTQIA+ people. A specific risk is a crew member harasses you through online apps, and there may be little safe recourse if LGBTQIA+ identities are illegal. In situations where you are not protected or may be targeted, we urge further caution and consider responses in personal safety plans. If LGBTQIA+ identities are protected, there may still be the fear of outing the harasser; however we recommend prioritising your safety and disclosing to the supervisor in these instances. If you are reporting sexual harassment, make sure you are aware of the policies and ensuing actions, as your autonomy may be lost in the process. Overall, being well-informed, connecting with LGBTQ+ professional societies and local LGBTQIA+ communities can help inform decisions and inform you of potential risks.
Looking forward
As LGBTQIA+ researchers work to create an inclusive future through social, political, and community efforts, we must acknowledge our communities’ strength. The rainbow flag includes sunlight, nature, life, and spirit, connecting us with fieldwork and pursuing research and engagement with the world. Despite disputed laws and threats to legal protections, we are a strong and resilient community. When we started our careers in fieldwork and research, we could not envision a future where there are not only queer researchers, but there is literature on LGBTQIA+ inclusion, multiple organisations working to increase inclusion, and international efforts to support all LGBTQIA+ people pursuing science and fieldwork. The world may change, but we are still here.
This post is meant to be educational, feel free to share it widely. You can also access fieldwork inclusivity sources here.
🏳️🌈 Rainbowly yours, Nathan, Jaime, Kay and the Queer Quarterly editing team.
Authors
Nathan Alexander (he/him) is a postdoctoral research associate at the Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, USA. He predominantly researches wildlife populations, species distributions, and landscape genetics. Nathan also currently chairs the LGBTQ+ Homeless Workgroup under the Champaign County Continuum of Service Providers to the Homeless, focusing on increased access, inclusion, and protection of LGBTQ+ people seeking assistance and social services.
Jaime J. Coon (they/she) is an interdisciplinary restoration ecologist working at Earlham College in Indiana, USA, whose work integrates social and natural science to assess the impacts of management on biodiversity, especially grassland birds. Jaime leads field teams of undergraduate students each summer and has a scholarly interest in fostering inclusivity in science, especially for students in fieldwork settings.
Kay McMonigal (he/him or they/them) is an Assistant Professor of Oceanography at University of Alaska Fairbanks. His research uses observations and models to understand the role of the changing ocean circulation in climate. He is also passionate about making seagoing oceanography more inclusive.
About Queer Quarterly:
Queer Quarterly is written by the blog team of the EGU pride group and their guests. You can send your comments, topic ideas, questions, wish of contribution, support to the Queer Quarterly blog team at the following address queer-quarterly@protonmail.com
