Sexual Harassment Common In Academic Field Expeditions
    By News Staff | July 16th 2014 03:09 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    A new survey analysis finds that in just about about any field where there are academics and field work, there is going to be sexual harassment and even assault.

    Yes, surveys, the bane of the scientific method. The authors analyzed survey results of 666 people (142 men, 516 women) with field experience in anthropology, archeology and more, and found that many respondents claimed to have suffered or witnessed sexual harassment or even sexual assault while at work in the field.

    A majority of the survey respondents (64 percent) said they had experienced sexual harassment (inappropriate sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, jokes about cognitive sex differences, obviously "inappropriate comments" criteria are subjective) while over 20 percent reported they had been the victims of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature, including touching, physical threats, or rape. Those are not subjective at all.

    Proportion of survey respondents, by gender, who indicated that inappropriate or sexual comments occurred never, rarely, regularly, or frequently at their most recent or most notable field site (N).doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102172

    Obviously rape is a criminal act so the first place to look for confirmation would be police records rather than survey claims by people recruited through the Internet. The authors say that isn't possible because few respondents, presumably intelligent people in a scientific area, "were aware of mechanisms to report incidents", which defies belief to women in the private sector, who could tell these academics exactly how they could have notified the police.

    "Our main findings – that women trainees were disproportionately targeted for abuse and felt they had few avenues to report or resolve these problems – suggest that at least some field sites are not safe, nor inclusive," said lead author Kathryn Clancy, anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "We worry this is at least one mechanism driving women from science."

    Or not. The social sciences are overwhelmingly women and archeology is 49 percent women while 60 percent of Ph.D.s in anthropology are women.

    The methodology is a concern, though you can stop reading if awkward questions about the viability of the results make you uncomfortable. They recruited respondents through social media outlets and websites who filled out an online survey asking them about their educational and professional status, gender, age, and experiences during field studies. The data is not available, yet somehow PLOS accepted it even after their much-publicized open data policy from earlier this year.

    Female researchers reported most often that they were the targets of researchers who were superior to them in rank – either more-established scientists working on the same sites, or leaders of the research - while males were most often harassed or abused by their peers.

    Since field research is a required component for a degree in many disciplines, sexual harassment in academic culture is obviously a concern, but no one is going to take action based on secret data drawn from surveys with no controls of any kind. It will get plenty of mainstream attention and some committees formed to talk about it, but little can be done without people willing to produce data.

    Still, even if there is no valid data, we know this can be a problem that should be proactively addressed. The authors note that field work is often one of the most exciting parts of science and a negative experience will drive people from academia. And they note that if there are problems, expedition leaders who are used to navigating university politics and grant committees may be uncomfortable tackling interpersonal conflicts in remote locations.

    Some sort of field guidelines should be produced. What is startling is that fields like anthropology haven't done it long before now.

    The pitfalls are obvious. As Clancy notes, "If you are on constant high alert because you have been harassed or you are at a site where you know it happens regularly, it drains your cognitive reserves and makes you less effective at your job. No one can work well under those conditions, and we can't ask trainees to keep doing so."

    Citation: Clancy KBH, Nelson RG, Rutherford JN, Hinde K (2014) Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102172. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102172. Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


    When we tell personal stories, we're told that our anecdotes are isolated incidents and not real data. When we put together a systematic, scientific survey, you say that it's not "real data." What's "real?" Do you want photographs? Video? Vaginal swabs? Fingerprints? If this wasn't "real data" how the hell did it make it past peer review?

    Saying "no one is going to take action" is your conjecture. It's not scientific fact. And it happens to ignore the many cases where policies HAVE been influenced-- by raising awareness within individual labs, by starting conversations within departments and university administrations, and by lending credence to individual anecdotes.

    Of course, this post shouldn't surprise me, given Science 2.0's long history of articles arguing that sexism in STEM doesn't exist or is overblown, or is manufactured as part of women's secret agenda to get ahead at the expense of men.

    "If this wasn't "real data" how the hell did it make it past peer review?"


    Peer review? At PLoS ONE? Peer review consists of them waiting for your credit card to clear. Once it does, the paper is posted. They don't even bother copyediting the articles.

    Yes, there is some minimal threshold of basic competence that must be met. But sheesh, read the garbage they publish regularly. Here's a study on which side of the face academics like to post in their homepage profiles.

    "we hypothesised that academics in the sciences would seek to pose as non-emotional rationalists and put their right cheek forward, while academics in the arts would express their emotionality and pose with the left cheek forward."

    The only way to know this for 100% certain would be to secretly bug and video a random set of field expeditions and see what happens.

    We must remember a survey can suffer selection bias. 

    Those most disaffected for whatever reason will reply more often.  They will exaggerate.  They will become the innocent lost babe in the woods surrounded by wolves.  

    Then there is the fact sexual harassment is confusing because it's hard to know what's appropriate.  A woman may react adversely to one thing from one man yet be ok with over the top attention from another man. 

    This SNL skit is funny for a reason

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    This was apparently a minor snit on Twitter before some new outrage took over. Check out the posturing of these two - and they turned out to not even have read the study. 

    It's always funnier when someone is hyperbolic in their condescension and turns out to be clueless about the paper they claim to be defending.

    That is very common these days.  Especially on sites that have FB based comments and twitter. It favors shallow interactions. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    This article is almost entirely an effort in misdirection. As an open science obsessive, sure I want people to share all their data, when reasonable. But in this case, it is simply not reasonable to require sharing of the raw data behind this study. There are way too many privacy issues associated with that notion. And therefore, pretty much the entire point of this article is invalid.

    I note - I find it, well, ironic I guess, that this is posted as being written by "News Staff" with no author behind it. Why not publish names of the authors? Afraid of retribution?

    And statements like "Yes, surveys, the bane of the scientific method" show that whomever wrote this has, well, no realy clue about the scientific method.

    LOL, no.

    This is the scientific method:

    1. Define
    2. Observe
    3. Hypothesize
    4. Experiment
    5. Analyze
    6. Repeat Steps 1-5
    7. Theorize
    8. Predict
    9. Communicate

    Funny, I don't see "conduct survey" anywhere in that list.

    If you consider surveys "the bane of the scientific method" you are unqualified to report on social science or most epidemiology.

    Obviously surveys cannot be trusted. Instead we should be looking at the FACT they had exactly 666 respondents. Coincidence? I call it DATA!