JEDI Reflections at the AGU Fall Meetings
by Kripa Jagannathan, Christopher Hyun, Anna Wilson, Jeanne Fernandez, Julie Vano, Kate Semmens, Kristen St John, Lindsey Middleton, Ryan Meyer, Thushara Gunda, Vincent Tong
The Science and Society Section, with support from AGU members from Hydrology and Education sections, piloted a “JEDI note-taking” activity at the AGU Fall Meeting held in December 2021 (in a hybrid: in-person + virtual format). The main goal of this effort was to encourage active reflection and conversations about JEDI issues in the AGU community, and gather insights into the question: What are the various ways that AGU's members and presenters currently engage in JEDI issues? How can we improve and move forward?
Ten AGU members undertook two tasks; (1) they asked a JEDI related question in a Fall meeting session that they attended, and (2) they summarized their reflections on the ways in which JEDI issues were discussed (or not) in the session using a semi-structured note-taking template. The captured observations highlighted many examples of JEDI-relevant efforts being undertaken in the AGU community. Below, we synthesize these notes organized around key questions related to JEDI considerations in the geosciences.
- How diverse, equitable and inclusive is the AGU community
- Does the Fall Meeting format allow for effective JEDI-related discussions?
- Are geoscientists and geoscience agencies building institutional mechanisms/frameworks that systemically address JEDI issues?
- To what extent are geoscientists engaging with different communities in their work?
- Are geoscientists using data, methods, tools, literature, or approaches that are specifically developed to study JEDI issues?
- Who benefits (or is harmed) by the work that geoscientists do?
How diverse, equitable and inclusive is the AGU community?
Our note-takers highlighted that the 2021 Fall Meeting presented an opportunity to observe who the AGU community consists of, and called for more active reflections and acknowledgement on the diversity (or lack thereof) of our members, presenters, session convenors and overall session attendees. While they acknowledged that a visual observation was insufficient to ascertain who was in the room, and whose voices were missing, the note-takers acknowledged the need to reflect on how diverse the session participation was.
Does the Fall Meeting format allow for effective JEDI-related discussions?
The activity also highlighted the need to assess whether and to what extent the Fall Meeting format allowed for conversations on JEDI-related issues. Some note-takers suggested that when sessions included discussion time, it allowed for presenters and audience to reflect on and discuss broader issues related to the impact of geosciences work. While recognising that the hybrid format was a new learning experience for AGU, some note-takes also highlighted that some of the technical issues with maneuvering the complicated hybrid format could have exacerbated existing inclusivity issues. Overall, there were suggestions that there is room for improvement in actively encouraging sessions to allow for broader discussions beyond just presentations.
Are geoscientists and geoscience agencies building institutional mechanisms/frameworks that systemically address JEDI issues?
The 2021 Fall Meeting highlighted many burgeoning institutional efforts being undertaken by the AGU community to address JEDI issues. These included several efforts to develop anti-racist and JEDI curricula and training, as well as specific programs to increase diversity in geosciences by removing barriers to participation in geosciences. However, challenges were not absent. For example, our note-takers noted that the presenters would often bring up the lack of funding for long-term sustainability and scaling-up of these efforts.
To what extent are geoscientists engaging with different communities in their work?
One of the most prominent ways in which AGU scientists engaged in JEDI issues was through working with different communities as part of their science, research, practice or art. Direct engagement with communities that may impact or might be impacted by geosciences was seen as extremely valuable. Fall Meeting presenters shared many examples of geoscientists actively collaborating and co-creating knowledge with local communities, decision-makers, traditional knowledge holders, etc. Yet it was also noted that there are still barriers to appropriately and effectively engaging different communities especially those traditionally marginalized.
Are geoscientists using data, methods, tools, literature, or approaches that are specifically developed to study JEDI issues?
Some JEDI relevant approaches highlighted by presenters during their Fall Meeting sessions included integrating indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge (ITEK) into geosciences, forming equitable research-practice partnerships with communities, and using service learning approaches. Within quantitative-oriented sessions, there was increased emphasis on social vulnerability data or indices, and approaches such as participatory modeling. Other JEDI-related concepts and approaches that were mentioned include place- and culture- based geoscience practices, and also using art to make science equitable. Few note-takers reported discussions on framings such as anti-colonial or feminist approaches or practices, and also highlighted that there was room for improvement in further highlighting such approaches in geosciences.
Who benefits (or is harmed) by the work that geoscientists do?
The note-takers also highlighted discussions on the role of geoscientists and AGU in understanding where funding and research need to be focused, in order to benefit the most marginalized and those historically impacted. For example, perspectives and responsibilities related to ‘loss and damage’ in climate funding came up in some sessions, while in others the more philosophical question of “What is the role of science in society” was also brought up. As one of the session presenters stated; “Science can and should help drive equity and justice” but “Science can also amplify injustices and drive equitable solutions.”
Overall thoughts
The six questions that we extracted from the synthesis of the JEDI notes reiterated the embeddedness of the geosciences within society and the social structures around us. Our reflections on how JEDI considerations are discussed (or not) within AGU also highlight how we as geoscientists are maneuvering ourselves as a community within the social process with which our work and our institutions intersect. This simple effort of actively and intentionally reflecting on JEDI within each session and asking a JEDI-related question, allowed for conversations that do not otherwise happen naturally in all AGU sessions and highlighted the challenges in fostering JEDI attention and discussion. We believe that creating platforms that allow for JEDI discussions to happen in many AGU sessions (and not only in specific JEDI-focussed sessions) will help to better integrate these practices into overall geosciences work (rather than seeing it as a separate activity). Towards this intent,
we have devised a simple JEDI questionnaire for the Fall Meeting 2022, that we hope can be more broadly used by the AGU community to reflect on JEDI-related issues in their sessions. We believe that such a reflection would be an important zero-order step for deeper discussions and furthering our commitment to JEDI values at AGU.
Calling on AGU members to help us broaden JEDI reflections at the Fall Meeting 2022
If you are convening or chairing a session or are an audience member attending an AGU session, please help us encourage JEDI reflections and conversations by (1) asking a JEDI-related question in the session (
see "JEDI Ideas" below for a few examples) and (2) filling out this simple questionnaire on your reflections (
see QR code and link above).