This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Fieldwork is a cornerstone of many geoscience study programmes, enhancing student learning experiences and fostering lasting social bonds. However, field-based courses can impose significant mental, physical, and financial burdens on students. This may inadvertently exclude and discriminate against those who lack the means to participate or deviate from the stereotypical image of field scientists. In designing field courses that support a wide range of students, the geosciences community has the opportunity to create a more welcoming environment and benefit from a more diverse generation of geoscientists. We share experiences and insights from our journey to develop institutional guidelines for field courses, which acknowledge and promote diversity, accessibility, and student well-being. We reflect on navigating the hurdles encountered while drafting these guidelines and the means to gain support for them. We explore the cultural shifts needed to challenge more conventional approaches to field-based teaching, along with questioning who traditionally participates and how courses are structured. We contrast bottom-up and needs-based approaches with top-down directives, emphasising effective communication between students and field trip leaders, as well as the impact of hierarchical structures. By addressing issues like physical fitness requirements and financial limitations, we propose strategies to lower entry barriers. In doing so, we aim to support and attract students from diverse backgrounds. The presentation also underscores the significance of proper communication, before, during, and after field courses, setting expectations and addressing student's concerns or challenges. Finally, we advocate for a comprehensive approach to safety, including considerations of mental health, harassment, and discrimination in formal risk assessments, accompanied by adequate training for field trip leaders.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miesen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: