Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Stories from the IPCC: An essay on climate science in fourteen questions

Miriam Gay-Antaki
University of New Mexico, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Women’s experiences as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, have been explored
Climate science showing how gender, race, nationality, etc. increase barriers to participate in the production of climate science
IPCC even for the best scientists. Recently, the IPCC Gender Task Force, conducted another survey exploring barriers to
Feminist objectivity
participation in the IPCC that included men as well as women. The Gender Task Force released a report on
Storytelling
Diversity and inclusion
gendered barriers mostly focusing on quantitative responses. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the
fourteen open-ended questions in the survey. In addition to qualitative analysis, storytelling and the concept of
feminist objectivity are useful approaches to convey the complicated web of responses of over 500 scientists
about their experiences participating in the IPCC and in climate science more broadly. Gender, race and na­
tionality continue to be barriers. I stress the connection between exclusions of underrepresented scientists in the
IPCC with the persistent western belief that science is an objective and impartial practice. The paper brings
attention to exclusionary structures that prevent participation in the IPCC and in science more broadly, but also
provides stories of how these are resisted. These stories go beyond recognizing people as disadvantaged toward
addressing the intersecting structures that exclude people from participating in science. As climate science be­
comes more diverse, and evidence points toward the benefit of diversity for superior science, understanding
barriers and opportunities for scientists participating in multidisciplinary and international reports such as the
IPCC becomes increasingly important. The stories provide a theoretical and methodological catalyst for inter­
national science institutions who seek to increase the influence and presence of underrepresented groups in
science and produce superior science.

1. Introduction: Stories, feminist objectivity and climate science
A large literature documents the underrepresentation of women,
people of color, and from the Global South in science (Bian et al., 2017;
Blickenstaff, 2005; Ceci et al., 2014; Ceci and Williams, 2011; Clancy
et al., 2017; Dean et al., 2012; Gay-Antaki and Liverman, 2018; Pawley
and Phillips, 2014; Settles et al., 2006). Failing to adequately incorpo­
rate a diverse scientific expertise, negatively impacts climate knowledge
and limits the effectiveness of solutions aimed at addressing climate
change impacts. This paper will not review the literature around barriers
in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as it as­
sumes that the reader is familiar or can familiarize themselves with this
work, see Shen (2013) to start.
Studies show that diversity improves science, but only under specific
conditions stressing that diversifying climate science will take more
work than simply adding a diverse group of scientists to the mix (Mannix
and Neale, 2005). While historically excluded groups are increasingly
invited to the climate debate, if they share different values and opinions,
rarely are they respected as epistemic authorities. Rather, their presence
is many times used to advance colonial stereotypes of women or indig­
enous people as closer to nature; as bearers of traditional knowledge.
Our dominant frameworks, responsible for the climate crisis go un­
challenged. The structures that have disproportionately leveraged our
normative understanding of what science is and who is a legitimate
knowledge producer are the same structures that impede others from
fully participating, fostering feelings of inadequacy contributing to a
‘leaky pipeline’ in STEM (Blickenstaff, 2005; Dean et al., 2012).
Informed by feminist theory, science and technology studies (STS),
and minorities in STEM literature, the paper uses qualitative analysis to
tell stories from over five hundred scientists who participated in an IPCC
survey by the Gender Task Force of the IPCC. The climate change report
from the gender task force relied heavily on numbers to tell a single story
about women and men’s participation in the IPCC (Liverman et al.,
2021; Gender, 2019). Whereas we know that the participation of women
has significantly increased in the IPCC from less than 2% during the first
report to 38% during the latest report, we know less about the ways that

E-mail address: mgayantaki@unm.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102384
Received 2 December 2020; Received in revised form 8 September 2021; Accepted 25 September 2021
Available online 6 October 2021
0959-3780/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Gay-Antaki
the increase of women scientists is impacting social and professional
relationships in these spaces, and the effects that these changes have
when producing scientific reports on climate change. The aim of this
paper is to expand the important work of the 2019 Gender Task Force
Report and reveal the diversity of voices and experiences behind these
numbers and examine the intersecting factors and conditions by which
power hierarchies are produced and resisted.
The qualitative analysis of the survey finds that a major barrier to
access science is the persistent belief that science is an objective and
impartial practice. Feminists have long criticized the idea that re­
searchers can distance themselves from what they study, and that
western science can be “an all-seeing eye” (Haraway, 1988). This
distancing allows western science to deny its epistemic origin, assume
objectivity and declare itself superior to other ways of knowing, label­
ling them as traditional. This objective stance subjugates other knowl­
edges and the people who generate them. I use feminist geographical
insights, to locate the “all-seeing eye” in its specific social–historical
context, not to dismiss the importance of science but to highlight that the
practice of climate science is context specific and not objective (Gay-
Antaki, 2020a; Grosfoguel, 2007; Mignolo, 1999). The paper brings
attention to the intersecting structures that continue to exclude non­
western and nonmales from participating in science (Curiel Pichardo,
2015; Harding, 2016; Lugones, 2010; Rivera Cusicanqui, 2012). Holding
science accountable asks that we participate in it with critical perspec­
tives to create spaces to generate knowledge that can contribute to
environmental and social justice (Blunt and Rose, 1994).
The stories presented here can aid strategies to prioritize actions to
increase diversity in science and identify working groups that need
support. Understanding how underrepresented groups, make meaning
of, and negotiate the culture of science, will contribute to improving
recruitment and retention efforts in climate science and STEM fields. By
highlighting some of the voices from 533 participating scientists, the
paper provides important insight into the specific structures and insti­
tutional practices that systematically exclude women and people of
color when accessing, producing, and disseminating scientific knowl­
edge. While the study focuses on scientists’ experiences in the IPCC,
their experiences illuminate barriers that underrepresented groups face
across the sciences. The IPCC attracts a highly interdisciplinary expertise
from across the globe and has much to gain from scientific benefits of
diverse working groups, urgently needed to address the climate crisis.
2. Methodology: Situating knowledge through feminist
objectivity and storytelling
We have attempted to address climate change, far from places that
are most affected because western science upholds that we can only
resolve challenges through objective and impartial knowledge (Har­
away, 1988). If we go to these places, we rarely speak to local people and
recognize their knowledge as legitimate and useful scientific knowledge.
Despite the respect that we give to indigenous, local or traditional sys­
tems, they must first go through scientific criteria before being recog­
nized as valid knowledge (Agrawal, 1995).
The persistent belief of objectivity in science is challenged by the
very nature of climate science where knowledge can host high un­
certainties as natural systems are complex, where “facts are uncertain,
values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz and
Ravetz, 1993, p. 744). Given the impossibility of studying climate
change as a unique system, climate change scientists must choose what
aspect they will study and must negotiate how their findings and
worldviews fit within the findings of a wide network of climate scientists
with distinct specializations and worldviews. Funtowicz and Ravetz’
term ‘post-normal science’ is fitting for climate science, where beyond
the exercise of establishing facts, and objective truths, climate science
must negotiate communicating what is disputed, unknown and uncer­
tain (1993).
Haraway’s concept of ‘feminist objectivity’ helps us to think about
2
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
bringing together the wide set of expertise required to mitigate and
adapt to global climate change. Feminist objectivity challenges ap­
proaches rooted in Western science that believe are an all-seeing eye
pretending to “see everything from nowhere” (1988). Feminist objec­
tivity challenges the notion of a “superior vantage point from which to
see everything clearly,” the God Trick (Haraway, 1988). Haraway
stresses instead how vision, an embodied sense, is influenced by our
sociopolitical positioning motivating the questions we ask. Gloria
Anzaldúa maintains that intuitive knowledge, that knowledge which we
have been taught to distrust, might be the closest representation of our
reality (Anzaldua, 2002). In this sense, it is essential to recognize that
our body commands what we learn, and that this knowledge can only be
partial. Feminist objectivity recognizes that the spaces we inhabit in­
fluence what we know and what we can know. Crucially, “this is not only
a question about social values in knowledge production or the fact that
our knowledge is always partial. The main point here is the locus of
enunciation, that is, the geo-political and body-political location of the
subject that speaks” (Grosfoguel, 2007, p. 213). Our positioning will
determine who we accept as a scientist, what knowledge we count as
scientific, whether we investigate the extent to which an ecosystem and
its inhabitants can be exploited for profit or investigate what kind of
relationship we want with our environment for a full life for all its in­
habitants (Carey et al., 2016; O’brien, 1993). Different positionings will
lead us to ask different questions, conduct different research and build
different partnerships, producing different types of knowledge that serve
different purposes. By collecting diverse and partial views of the IPCC
survey into a collective subject position, through the concept of feminist
objectivity, this paper challenges the superior vantage point claimed by
western science. By underscoring the situated positions of diverse sci­
entists, the paper seeks to create a vision from somewhere to better work
within the limits and contradictions of climate science.
Telling stories from the qualitative analysis of the survey was
inspired by Valeria Luiselli’s “Los Niños Perdidos: un ensayo en 40
preguntas” (“The Lost Children’s Archive”, English translation) where
volunteering as a translator, faced the most difficult task of fitting very
complex and harrowing stories of migrant children into little boxes for
the United States’ homeland security office. These surveys would
determine whether migrant children would be given legal assistance and
asylum. Luiselli found it impossible to fit the life of these children into
little boxes and felt compelled to tell the children’s stories - silenced by
the survey. In Luiselli’s words (my translation) “The words that I listen
to in court come out from children’s toothless mouths, parched lips,
strung words in confusing and complex narratives…One must translate
these words into another language, transform them into a coherent
narrative”. Luiselli expresses the difficulty in not only translating these
stories but doing justice to them by telling a narrative that uses clear and
meaningful terms so that others who do not get to listen to these children
first-hand, can get a true sense of what these children go through (Lui­
selli, 2017).
Her short novel is organized by using the questions of the survey to
tell the stories of these children, the process of migration, the conditions
of the countries that they leave, and the conditions that they find in the
U.S. I take inspiration from Luiselli to tell the stories of diverse IPCC
scientists as they fill out the survey distributed by the Gender Task Force.
Informed by geographers who incorporate the humanities in their work
(Daniels et al., 2012; Hawkins, 2019, 2015; Magrane, 2015; Marston and
leeuw, 2019; Moezzi et al., 2017); feminist science and technology
studies (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2006; Maynard, 1997); and the
literature around minorities’ experiences in STEM (Bian et al., 2017;
Ceglie, 2011; Goulden et al., 2011), I set out to weave a story together
about what it is like to produce climate science, particularly from the
perspective of those whose voices are silenced by regular qualitative
analysis simply because of their underrepresentation in science, climate
science, and in the IPCC. The stories that I tell from the qualitative
analysis of the survey, serve as a representational strategy of the com­
plex webs of relations in the production of climate science. Social
M. Gay-Antaki
scientists interpreting data, tell stories about their research. As re­
searchers we gather data, reflect upon those stories and interpret them
(Dahlstrom, 2014; Day and O’Brien, 2017; McCall et al., 2019; Moezzi
et al., 2017).
As we share stories from our research, we become storytellers
(Christensen, 2012). Admitting to storytelling from a qualitative anal­
ysis, is a political act as I am honest about how the analysis I perform,
and the stories I tell, are embedded in my feminist training and academic
background (Christensen, 2012; Lövbrand et al., 2015; Nast, 1994). Any
author reporting results from any source of data, interviews, pictures,
surveys, must decide what is important to convey; what stories to tell.
This is what I call storytelling. Using storytelling in addition to quali­
tative analysis as a method is a well-established practice within feminist
research and in social science work (Besio, 2005; Cameron, 2012; Cas­
tree et al., 2014; Dahlstrom, 2014; Day and O’Brien, 2017; Gay-Antaki,
2020b; Harris, 2020; Hawkins, 2019; Mcbean, 2014). In addition to
qualitative analysis, the story format allows for an interpretive repre­
sentational strategy. Stories as a method of representation makes more
transparent how diverse people experience participating in the IPCC. As
there is no cohesive voice coming from the IPCC, qualitative analysis,
stories, and feminist insights enable me to elucidate the complex ways in
which gendered assumptions and power relations that discriminate
against women and other marginalized groups are produced, sustained,
negotiated and challenged in the IPCC, the climate debate, and science
more broadly (Goldman et al., 2018; Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2006;
Tuana, 2013). Feminist STS and decolonial scholarship ground IPCC
participant’s responses in their specific contexts while reflecting distinct
worldviews (Rice et al., 2015).
Telling stories from the IPCC responds to calls from Hulme 2010,
2011, Castree et al 2014, Hackman et al 2014, and others who believe
that the domination of positivist disciplines in understanding anthro­
pogenic climate change offers “little or no sense of humans as diverse,
interpretive creatures who frequently disagree about values, means and
ends” (Castree et al., 2014, p. 765). Research that encourages inter­
pretation in the global climate debate “allows critical engagement with
the Anthropocene as a socially and culturally bounded object with many
possible meanings and political trajectories” (Lövbrand et al., 2015, p.
211). In addition to qualitative analysis, stories from the IPCC can
expand our understanding of the “conception of ‘human dimensions’ at a
time when the challenges posed by global environmental change are
increasing in magnitude, scale and scope” (Castree et al., 2014, p. 763).
Storytelling enables us to better identify and address barriers and op­
portunities to access and produce quality climate research while fighting
against overly narrow conceptions of what is possible and desirable in
the fight against climate change (Castree et al., 2014; Hackmann et al.,
2014; Hulme, 2011, 2010; Lövbrand et al., 2015; Mahony and Hulme,
2018; Matless, 2016).
Through a qualitative analysis of the survey, I attempt to provide a
coherent narrative from the hundreds of experiences recorded in the
survey to clarify how diverse scientists negotiate producing climate
science. For each question posed in the survey, fourteen in total, I
analyzed open-ended responses behind the numbers and percentages
across the survey to discover moments and stories of significance in
making climate science. The qualitative analysis focused on free form
responses, some of which were several paragraphs long. I used certain
responses to give a qualitative description of scientists’ experiences
participating in the IPCC report, using a “most typical” response for each
question from diverse scientists, to capture the spirit of the overall re­
sponses to the questions. Although the choices of quotes and the in­
terpretations is subjective, the choices were 1) rooted in theory, 2)
consistent with existing data (Fox, 2005; Gay-Antaki and Liverman,
2018; Sanders, 2009; Settles et al., 2006; Wenneras and Wold, 2001).
1520 scientists received the survey and 533 completed the survey for
a response rate of 35%, high for online surveys. I looked for patterns
from the responses to each of the questions posed from the survey
elucidating agreements and contradictions and the constant negotiation
3
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
that scientists undertake when producing a report such as the IPCC.
3. Results and discussion: Who is a climate scientist?
The survey begins with a seemingly innocent question. How do you
currently identify? There were four options: Male, Female, Other, prefer
not to identify.
39% responses from scientists identified as women and 58% as men.
These numbers represent over 50% of women invited to fill out the
survey vs 28% of men. 10 scientists chose to not disclose their gender, 2
scientists said other. From this “other” category one stressed: “scientist (I
understand the question as when I contribute to the IPCC)” making me
think of Donna Haraway’s futuristic sexless and genderless cyborg,
wondering what science would look like then. I also consider that this
response comes from one of the lucky few scientists where gender, race,
class, nationality, have not impeded their ability to become a successful
scientist. I wonder about those 10 scientists who chose not to identify
their gender on a survey about gender relations. Research has high­
lighted the problems of assessing gender identity via surveys, and the
violence of the gender binary and the challenges (especially those who
are gender nonconforming) of navigating this (Conron et al., 2008;
Fraser, 2018; Tate et al., 2013). In line with this research, respondent’s
refusal to respond to this gender identity question, could be protesting
society’s obsession with the gender binary. Perhaps, “other” also felt
violent, since what can you be in this world if you are not a man or a
woman? But, perhaps they refused to disclose their gender because they
felt this was an unimportant question when it comes to the production of
science. STS research has shown that hiding the scientist’s gender,
(usually male) reaffirms their position as legitimate knowledge pro­
ducers of objective and impartial knowledge as having no gender means
no bodies to contaminate their science (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 1986;
Maynard, 1997).
The next question in the survey asked scientists with which region of
the world they associate with. The responses were: Africa 9%; Asia, 16%;
Europe, 36%; Latin America and Caribbean 13%; North America 17%;
Oceania 9% Other 0.8% Left Blank 0.4%. 62% of scientists were from
Europe, North America and Oceania. A response to this question un­
derscores how gendered bodies have a location “I am a Latin woman and
as a reviewer of the North American chapter, I felt discrimination by
some of the men in the chapter.” A scientist from Mexico, felt uneasy
being grouped into the North America category: “if I must pick, but
really I am from Mexico, hence North America, but culturally speaking I
feel more related to the Latin American group.” Corbera et al. (2015) has
shown the predominance of Global North countries in shaping the IPCC
report. Grouping Mexico with Canada and the United States as is indi­
cated by the predominance of American and Canadian works cited, has
meant that Mexican scientists must fight to get their science across in the
overall report and within their specific grouping.
The numerical responses to this question underscore the underrep­
resentation of African scientists in the IPCC. Scientists commented: “our
chapter was quite diverse with only marginally more men and a number
of less developed countries… participation from Africa was stifled…”.
And “Africa’s representation has been and still is VERY weak. Even if
they are engaged, their role is not strong.” The scientist suggested extra
training for African scientists so that they participate effectively in the
space. This indicates that IPCC’s rules of engagement are exclusionary
for an entire continent – over 50 countries – perpetuating colonial
relationships.
Patriarchal relationships are also perpetuated as the following quote
describes “my experience of gender issues in IPCC (as a woman) has
been terrible. For me, IPCC has been the worse environment to operate
in. Nearly all chapter meetings and plenary sessions I attended were
appallingly chaired, with no effort to engage people who are less
aggressive or assertive, in the end, only the more assertive people ended
up talking (not the most knowledgeable). The issue is not only for
women, but scientists from developing countries or with less of a strong
M. Gay-Antaki
knowledge of English.“ The quote illustrates how the institutional
structure of the IPCC perpetuates colonial and patriarchal relationships
by giving voice only to those who successfully navigate a western and
masculine space by being aggressive and assertive.
3.1. Does experience make you a better scientist?
Science as an institution, has been historically built by white, west­
ern and masculine structures supporting the participation of those who
fit comfortably within these structures, posing a problem if climate
science requires a wide array of perspectives that are flexible and current
(Blickenstaff, 2005). We must be weary of the following beliefs from
survey participants such as: “I think there is an effort to engage all
groups more equitably, but experience still counts and there the
advantage is with developed country, older males.”
Questioning how those with “experience” are the ‘developed coun­
try, older males’, enables us to denaturalize their superiority in climate
science. The response indicates that those with ‘experience’ have the
experience because of structural advantages supported by the IPCC. As
expressed by a respondent: the “IPCC is a network of peers…it also
comes with a lot of prestige particularly in relation to very important
scientists / editors / opportunity for influence, which are like currency
for a research career.” Networking with the right people seems as
important as being a good scientist to get your voice across in the IPCC.
Becoming a difficult space to navigate as an introvert or as someone who
is not accustomed to ‘networking’, indicating how climate science is
very much a social practice (Harding, 1998). The respondent goes on to
express: “the opportunity to engage is hugely rewarding, yet confusion
can also arise when interpersonal rapport mixes with authority”; or
those who are the most familiar with the IPCC, feel entitled to command
the space and thus the science. Accounts such as these should make us
reevaluate the weight that we give to ‘experience’. These individuals
might be diminishing the impact of the report if they are barring the
participation from scientists that are less familiar with the IPCC but not
with climate science. The next questions collected information about the
age and education of IPCC participants. 80 % of scientists were between
the ages of 30–50, 4% under 30, and 25% over 50. 91% of scientists in
the IPCC had PhDs others had DSc, Dr h.c. MS JD degrees.
3.2. What does a climate scientist look like?
Those who felt quite at home, usually older western and male
expressed, “I am probably something like a “dinosaur” in IPCC terms. I
notice that it is easy for me to say what I want to say, I am treated with
respect”. While people were only reporting their age, their responses
indicate that their perceived youthfulness and consequent lack of
experience was also gendered. For instance, “some senior, male LAs
(Lead Authors) tended to expect younger women to do secretarial work”.
Some young female scientists participating in the IPCC, were made to
feel inferior by male senior scientists. The following experience high­
lights the ongoing gatekeeping that goes on in the IPCC: “I’m a younger
researcher and it was my first experience in the IPCC team. The first
meeting a male researcher commented: ‘are you involved in the IPCC as
an LA? You don’t look like a researcher’. As I expressed my surprise to
his comment to me, he said, ‘it is not a negative comment, just saying
you don’t look like a scientist’.” The young researcher was made to feel
that they did not belong in the space because of the way that they
looked. This comment positions masculine structures as normative in
science. The young scientist expressed: “this comment made me feel
over self-conscious of the way I look and how I dressed at the meet­
ings…” Research shows that similar interactions diminish women’s
scientific contributions as they must spend time dealing and processing
these interactions instead of producing science (Beasley and Fischer,
2012; Castilla, 2008; Steele, 2011). Fortunately, their experience was a
positive one because they found other scientists who looked like them: “I
was able to engage with a brilliant and feminine looking team which
4
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
made me feel very comfortable in my own skin. Thanks to all the women
in the IPCC, IPCC Co-Chairs and wonderful IPCC TSU [Technical Sup­
port Unit]” underscoring the great importance of role models and a
support system to succeed in science. Finding researchers they could
relate to, increased their sense of belonging (Buck et al., 2008). A few
years ago, their experience might not have been positive as one scientist
observed: “there has been a notable change in attitude to female,
younger scientists and those from developing countries. 2005 would
have been very different!“
3.3. On the importance of diversity and mentors for successful teamwork
(you can be white and male!)
The next questions asked about roles scientists had in the IPCC and,
how they became involved or invited the first time. Most respondents
have acted as Lead Authors, 342 responders also participated in the last
report AR5 2013, and 19 participated in the first report in 1990.
31% of scientists participating in the IPCC responded to an open call
for interest in being nominated from their country. This meant that most
scientists self-nominate. Research has shown that this approach works
best in western masculine cultures, so it is important to encourage others
to apply (Blickenstaff, 2005; Drury et al., 2011; Ong, 2005). Several
scientists now participating expressed gratitude to those who encour­
aged them to apply: “XXX stopped me in the corridor one evening…and
said I should apply. I did and have never regretted it.” There is ample
evidence that points at the importance of role models to succeed in
science. As Drury et al. (2011) stress, role models do not have to look like
you. The quote above highlights that the feeling of belonging to a place
is very much enhanced when people regardless of gender, race, class,
sexuality make you feel like you have something to contribute. Whereas
including someone for their skills made a scientist feel confident about
their capacity to contribute, the following example made this scientist
feel they were invited to feel a quota: “the CLA [Coordinating Lead
Author] asked me to be LA (I think because he was desperate to have at
least one woman in his chapter).”
It becomes evident that for significant inclusion, those who dominate
the space become aware of their behavior so that they can actively
engage in making the IPCC more inclusive and accepting of those who
bring different perspectives. Mannix and Neale’s (2005) study found
that diverse groups which functioned well together welcomed diversity
by categorizing others through underlying differences, such as differ­
ences in functional background, education, or personality. While those
who categorized others and themselves through race, gender, ethnicity
or age tended to lead to more pessimistic views of team diversity, those
who view diversity in terms of ideas, understand the benefits of working
with individuals with different backgrounds, networks, information, and
skills. This approach to diversity improves the overall group outcome
even though it might create coordination problems for the group
(Mannix and Neale, 2005). These studies underscore the need for all
scientists to participate in diversity efforts for these to be successful,
especially those who believe this work is not for them. Recognizing one’s
position in society and the barriers or opportunities that accompany that
position is an important first step in increasing diversity in science as
studies have shown (Grasswick, 2014; Kulik et al., 2007; Raymond,
2013; Ross, 2015; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014).
3.4. Science, gender, and participation
The survey then asked about gender balance and bias in the IPCC.
This question consisted of sub questions A-G. Many scientists felt
compelled to expand on their responses. Table 1 shows some questions
and quantitative responses:
The quantitative responses underscore that most scientists agree that
women and men have similar opportunities to participate in the IPCC,
from being nominated to shaping the report. Most scientists believe that
even though there are still more men than women in the report, the IPCC
M. Gay-Antaki
Table 1
Q8, survey responses to questions regarding gender balance and bias in the IPCC, total and differentiated by gender. Q8. What are your views of gender balance and
bias in IPCC?
Q8 Strongly agree Agree Neutral
(8A) Women and men have equal chances to be nominated for IPCC in my country
total count 128 190 57
total % 26.3% 39.1% 11.7%
women % 20.3% 36.0% 11.2%
men % 30.6% 41.4% 11.9%
(8B) Women and men are equally represented in the IPCC
total count 21 66 97
total % 4.3% 13.7% 20.1%
women % 4.6% 11.3% 17.9%
men % 4.3% 15.2% 21.3%
has improved their gender balance over time. The use of the term
“equal” in the questions was critiqued by many respondents. The
question could have been phrased better, however; the open-ended re­
sponses provide important insight into people’s views about gender
relations in the IPCC.
Some responses expressed skepticism about what the survey would
report overall: “Forgive me, but I find this line of questioning curious. In
all cases, the questions being asked can be confirmed directly without a
survey or are questions that I have not had an opportunity to assess in
any meaningful way (how could I possibly know whether men and
women have equal chances to be nominated?). I am skeptical of the
value of the findings you will be generating”. Beyond numbers, without
a survey, and the open-ended responses, we would have been unable to
gather attitudes toward gender. This scientist’s attitude of being unable
to judge whether women and men have equal chances can reflect natural
scientists’ unease when asked to interpret rather than to offer objective
observations (Saloranta, 2001). Another expressed: “It is clear that there
is not a 50/50 gender split… But the question appears to confuse,
perhaps deliberately, equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
[In] my own institute, there is a limited pool of possible women LA
applicants (based on comparing the gender split of faculty, i.e., semi-
permanent staff). It is not therefore at all unreasonable that such dis­
crepancies propagate through to IPCC” (emphasis my own). The
respondent alludes to the small pool of women available in their insti­
tution and is not surprised that this would be reflected in the IPCC. An
objective observation finds more men than women in the IPCC, which
respondents were comfortable reporting. If we do not try to understand
why this is so, then men are simply better climate scientists. This
conclusion runs counter to the growing evidence that underscores
gendered barriers and discrimination to access science (Shen, 2013).
Responses above, illuminate the hostility that many underrepresented
groups will face when entering traditionally western and male spaces
that are now changing (Banchefsky and Park, 2018; Ceci and Williams,
2011). This will not be a welcome change for scientists who do not
perceive the lack of diversity in climate science as a problem: “IPCC
gives equal opportunity to all to participate in its work, but women do
not take up these opportunities because they lack relevant
qualifications.”
Other scientists sought to clarify their numerical responses: “I can’t
answer that women and men have equal opportunities at any role in
IPCC when fundamentally they are not equally represented”. Or: “‘equal
chances’ is difficult to judge, IPCC draws from the research community,
which has its own gender imbalances. So the question is whether the
IPCC should reflect those imbalances (in which case women and men
would have the same chances of participating, but there would still be an
imbalance) or try to make the balance better (would mean giving more
chances of participating to women).” To achieve gender balance, more
opportunities must be given to women, many respondents believed this
would be detrimental to climate science’s overall quality, reflective of
broader attitudes of increasing diversity in STEM (Ross, 2015; Sheltzer
and Smith, 2014).
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
Disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable to me N
80 20 11 486
16.5% 4.1% 2.3%
21.8% 7.1% 3.6% 197
12.6% 2.1% 1.4% 278
218 68 13 483
45.1% 14.1% 2.7%
44.1% 19.5% 2.6% 195
46.9% 9.8% 2.5% 277
3.5. Does adding mean dilution?
Some respondents were sympathetic toward increasing the partici­
pation of women in climate science but expressed concerns such as:
“[M]y perception is that female scientists…have a HIGHER chance to
be selected as lead authors, because they are underrepresented as
faculty members… [A]t more senior level gender is completely out of
balance both at university and IPCC level, achieving a balance im­
plies that females have to be selected at an over-proportional rate…
in N America and some countries in Europe this is perceived as a
disadvantage for young male scientists in response to a discrimina­
tion of female scientists in many previous decades. This may seem an
odd complaint after decades of discrimination against female scien­
tists, but I feel that it is crucial to aspire really equal chances for all
scientists independent of age, gender and cultural background.“
I chose this account because their fear about increasing the number
of women is expressed with sensitivity, unlike many other survey re­
spondents. Yet, they fail to consider the barriers that underrepresented
scientists must have already overcome to be considered by the IPCC. In a
respondent’s words: “Good old boys“ like to pick men to fill all slots.
Women must be much better than ”average“ at their jobs to get a slot,
where men can be at or even a bit worse than ”average“ to be picked.”
Succeeding in the IPCC takes more than simply being a good scientist;
connections matter, as another respondent explains: “the IPCC tends to
be buddy system where you have to know people inside the IPCC in
order to participate. [Those]who travel a lot, will know more IPCC de­
cision makers, and thus be contacted and asked to participate. Women
who have children, and can’t travel much, will not be known by IPCC
folks, so are not chosen. Men tend to speak more in the IPCC, even if they
are uninformed on the topic. They also tend to self-promote their own
papers, and make sure they are included. Women tend to defer more.
This is even worse for non-native English speakers.” This quote eluci­
dates how the institutional structures of the IPCC might not invite the
best scientists but the best connected. If diversifying the IPCC means that
scientists will be invited to participate based on their scientific merit and
not their network, the science produced can only be improved.
3.6. Self-reflection as an antidote for “silver-back behavior”
Respondents equated institutional knowledge, access and privilege
to superior knowledge: “science is not a pluralistic democratic exercise
and often silver-back behaviour… come[s] with superior knowledge…”
This framing makes the “silverback behaviour” a necessary evil in
climate science production. The respondent expands:
“you want to limit the dominance but not discriminate against silver-
backs completely… Positively discriminating against features that a
being can’t change (i.e., being male and white)… is taking a tax on
the individual when it comes in concentrated dose… Particularly
when used by alpha-ladies, that discriminatory experience is not easy
5
M. Gay-Antaki
to deal with (a lesson for how other groups face discriminatory
actions…)”
Silverback behavior in English speaking contexts alludes to Silver­
back gorilla behavior, a male and most aggressive and commanding who
is responsible for their group’s safety. The association of “silverback”
behavior with being white and male removes the responsibility of
changing the space from those who most need to change. Increasing
diversity in climate science becomes the work of those who are diver­
sifying science by their mere presence, while likely reducing their own
ability to become as competitive as the “silverbacks”(Beasley and
Fischer, 2012). If being white and male was equivalent to exhibiting
“silverback” behavior, and this is the behavior needed to be a good
scientist, then all white and male scientists would be successful. This is
untrue.
Engaging in self-reflection and recognizing one’s relative privilege in
the spaces that we navigate might have made this scientist pause before
comparing his own experience with those who have historically been
violently excluded from producing, scientific knowledge (Grasswick,
2014). Being held responsible for behaviors that are discriminatory,
sexist or racist is not comparable to experiencing discrimination, sexism
or racism. The scientist could have realized they were being “positively
discriminated against” because they were silencing and undermining
others and feel attacked for something that is intrinsic to their being.
Framing themselves as a victim, gives them an easy way to change
nothing, while relegating the responsibility of change onto others.
There is nothing intrinsic about being white and male that stops us
from advocating for inclusion and diversity. It is evident that the space
of the IPCC is changing, and those who dominated the space are feeling
these changes. Importantly, they miss that their discomfort might mean
positive changes for underrepresented groups, as is demonstrated by the
story of a young female scientist: “I observed everyday sexism by a se­
nior male scientist… This was publicly challenged at the time, most
notably by a senior female scientist, and rebuked by the (female) co-
chair.” Rather than perceiving the “alpha-ladies” as simply out to get the
“silverbacks” a more generous interpretation would have been to un­
derstand that those with the courage to call out “silverback” behavior,
would be more established female scientists, and that they are under­
taking extra labor, beyond that of being scientists, to make the IPCC
more welcoming and inclusive.
3.7. Gendered inequalities in climate science
This section seeks to illustrate experiences of those who experienced
gender discrimination. A respondent eloquently expressed “although the
opportunity may be the same [for men and women], in reality group
dynamics and inertia, results into women being less heard and not
reaching a leading role”. It is important to underscore that gender
discrimination will often not be experienced as a hostile act from an
individual but as an accumulation of barriers (Bian et al., 2017; Castilla,
2008; Ross, 2015). For instance: “I was the only woman on my chapter
and felt a bit bulldozed by the males…“ another expressed “Men were
the majority and were quite domineering (I fought back.)” and another
“men dominate discussions and are aggressive and confrontational when
statements contrary to their opinions are discussed. I found this to be
true across most of the discussions I was in. This behaviour managed to
silence many of the softer-spoken women from mostly developing
countries”. These stories elucidate that to participate effectively in the
IPCC one needs to exhibit traditional western and male behavior such as
being forthright and aggressive. If most people in the room are white and
male, the exclusionary or intimidating dynamic will be perpetuated.
Sexual orientation was seldom mentioned, likely in response to survey
design, however it was reported as a barrier by a scientist who expressed
that “being queer at this event was occasionally uncomfortable.”
Even though gender was perceived to be a nonissue by some, others
observed that gender represented specific barriers especially for younger
6
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
or more reserved scientists for instance:
“my chapter Chair was particularly aggressive, contradicting most of
what I said, to the point that ended up saying less hoping that at least
what I thought was important would not be cut. I never had the
feeling that I was knowledgeable during IPCC meetings… The IPCC
fed my impostor syndrome. My feeling is that climate science is very
macho in general, and the IPCC is a regrouping of climate scientists”.
And another similar experience “One of my chapter CLAs has been
very difficult to work with. I find that he does not listen to my sugges­
tions and/or ignores them, in the first meeting he actually told me to “be
quiet”; and another: “I was treated as a graduate student by one of the
CLAs of my chapter, I felt very intimidated and a little unsure what my
role was”. Importantly, the last two scientists reported these experiences
and were effectively dealt with by the TSU and Co-Chairs of IPCC. One
scientist felt that the intervention “made [their] experience very good at
the end”. The other reported that their working environment improved,
but still found it difficult to work with the CLA.
The respondents highlight the key role that a responsive leadership
plays in increasing gender and cultural representation in the IPCC report
and observe that dynamics are changing:
“I see great progress being made, and perhaps the remaining im­
balances reflect the existing imbalance in the scientific community.
It’s a fact that the inertia in giving men important roles, airtime, a
pass on their engrained attitudes is still present, but a more pro-
active attitude is permeating the whole operation, many women
scientists are giving great examples of leadership”.
The gratitude of some for this type of leadership was met with hos­
tility by others as expressed through terms like “Alpha ladies” or “[a]
female with diversity paranoia chip on her shoulder”.
As IPCC structures create barriers for those who do not exhibit
traditional western, masculine traits, it also excludes important ideas
from mainstream IPCC understandings for instance: “My contribution to
climate economics is to demonstrate that it is primarily an equity
problem, not an efficiency problem, yet that contribution has been de­
nied/opposed consistently” and “…In IPCC workshops on emissions
pathways the scientific understanding objectives my group of countries
were seeking were dismissed” and “a majority of participants took the
challenges as welcome opportunities to exchange and clarify views and
build linkages among different perspective. A minority took any chal­
lenge, however politely I tried to present it, as at least unwelcome, if not
offensive…having a strong gender dimension.” This gatekeeping can
only be detrimental to climate science; it is when our beliefs are chal­
lenged that we must reevaluate where they come from and assess
whether they are still relevant, leading to better questions, better
research, and better science (Campbell et al., 2013; Loder, 1999).
3.8. Overcoming barriers
While more men reported having excellent to good experiences in
shaping their chapter, many women also reported positive experiences.
Positive responses alluded to having the right characteristics to succeed
in the IPCC for instance: “I am listened to because I am loud, outspoken
and speak English fluently…being listened to has not necessarily
something to do with me being a woman…” The respondent allows us to
comprehend that exhibiting traditionally masculine and western
behavior is useful to succeed in the IPCC. Having the confidence to be
loud and outspoken, was generally accompanied by being more senior
and having experienced navigating the IPCC:
“I have found my experiences to be inclusive and enjoyable…when
attending meetings, you see the people in your working group more
than your own family, it becomes hard to draw the line between
friendly humour and harassment especially when there are cultural
differences… Being older and perhaps a little more confident now I
M. Gay-Antaki
would say discretely but firmly straight away if I was being made to
feel uncomfortable or saw someone else in the situation. However, in
the past I and other colleagues tried to laugh it off, not wanting to
cause a scene or offence with colleagues that we respected in case it
was a misunderstanding…”
It seems that the default working condition is discriminatory, and
that it is up to individuals to protect themselves and others from business
as usual. Successful techniques that have made the space more inclusive
are highlighted by the same scientist “I have had some of my best pro­
fessional experiences at IPCC workshops and meetings where co-chairs
and fellow delegates made sure all voices were heard, sometimes by
breaking into pairs or small groups and reporting upwards, by asking
specific people to give their opinion and being patient if they weren’t
English speakers, using tools like guiding questions, brainstorms,
anonymous suggestion/question boxes to garner interaction”.
3.9. Is there science beyond English?
While many stories above illustrate challenges that diverse teams
face, members from the South and Central America Chapter reported
positive experiences: “the South and Central America’s Chapter was a
very special case, almost all scientists [spoke] Portuguese or Spanish…
[we] discussed in Spanish/Portuguese and [wrote] in English.” The
opportunity to think and speak in Spanish and Portuguese for the sci­
entists made their experience positive. Meneghini and Packer (2007)
write about the barriers to access science for the non-English speaking
world. As English becomes the lingua franca of science, science in other
languages must always be translated. The mastery of English is directly
connected to one’s country’s scientific capabilities.
Meneghini and Packer stress that “science is part of culture”, but the
process of producing science for the international community, must be
stripped away from its own non-English language and context and “[if
there is no effort to create scientific semantics in the native language
within a national scientific community, the country and its culture will
not be able to absorb the scientific ideas and knowledge that ultimately
serve its society (Kushner, 2003)” (2007, p. 114). Meneghini and Packer
ask whether we should “make additional efforts to incorporate scientific
English into our culture or [whether] we should improve our native
scientific language (2007). Perhaps the example of the Central and
South American team gives us a way forward. The South and Central
America team were able to think and communicate in their mother
tongue with other fellow scientists. They were skipping the process of
translation (and of being translated) to participate in scientific knowl­
edge production. A shared language and a shared cultural perspective
during a scientific meeting removed English language as a barrier to
participate, at least in the generation of the ideas. The opportunity to
speak their mother tongue made a scientist in the group feel “free [to]
express [their] opinion” leading to excellent professional and personal
experiences.
3.10. The incorporeality of world experts and the embodiment of the
‘other’
Regarding opportunities to contribute to the IPCC responding to
different questions, 80% of respondents said that everyone had equal
opportunities to contribute, 41% thought that male scientists dominated
discussions and 24% believed that scientists from the Global South were
not able to contribute fully.
The domination of male scientists was perceived by some as a simple
numbers game “In a room that is already not balanced, it will not be
surprising for the men to dominate the discussion”. However, we have
learned from the experiences above that barriers to participation are
more complex. The intersecting barriers of patriarchy and colonialism to
participate in international science were brought up frequently. Many
scientists note that the lack of diverse participation in the IPCC comes
7
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
down to more than a gender binary: “differences were bigger between
individuals than “just” men and women.” And “strong and influential
personalities can be either male or female”.
Another scientist explained how the institutional structure of the
IPCC makes it difficult for those who are not accustomed engaging under
“western cultural standards”:
“[c]apabilities play a large role in IPCC engagement…those who
cannot engage at Western cultural standards are at a disadvantage.
IPCC culture and way of working from top to the chapter level are
heavily dominated by Western scientific institution standards. Shy,
non-native English speakers, those who write poorly in English, those
who defer to more aggressive / enthusiastic group members are at a
distinct disadvantage and their contributions are less and valued
less.”
Respondents mentioned the difficulty for many scientists to access
expensive electronic journals and importantly, convincing others of
what literature should matter: “The view of what materials were peer
reviewed was quite narrow.” As non-English scientific publications were
discounted, so was the practice of science in non-western spaces, for
instance: “the contribution is uneven mainly due to the different levels
of expertise. In our chapter most of the colleagues from developing
countries have a more regional research focus, which is highly beneficial
for some aspects but often a disadvantage in a global assessment.” and
“the synthesis and writing were dominated by western country scien­
tists, mostly English speaking or very fluent in English. It seemed that
scientists from other countries, were more there for geographic balance,
but they were not the experts in the topics… it is really important to
have the geographic representation for many good reasons, and it is
really important to have the world experts in the room as well.”
Those scientists who embodied a location with a more grounded
understanding of climate impacts disagreed with the sentiments of those
claiming to be world experts They expressed that the dismissal of their
knowledge limited climate science: “I felt that as a rep from SIDS, I was
not heard when I expressed my view. It was a mixture of academics and
practitioners and it was often hard to reconcile what people read with
what others experienced on the ground.” Another commented:
“As per earlier responses, I understood the need for compromise. I
have huge respect and liked very much the motivated people
involved but I felt…we missed the mark… we lacked “on the ground”
experience in the group“…As a scientist from [identifiable infor­
mation about the scientist’s expertise and location is cut out here]…I
live daily the reality of what adaptation must be if we are to remain
safe over the coming decades. The academic mist and euphemisms of
AR5 must be dispensed with!”
This expresses frustration with the “God Trick” pretending to see
everywhere from nowhere. The scientist believes that situated per­
spectives are key to addressing climate change, that the dismissal of
local scientific knowledge will result in inadequate conclusions and
solutions to climate change. The ‘world experts’, however, diminish the
value of local knowledge as they claim to not have a location and no
social context to contaminate their science. Only non-western scientists
have a location that strips away their status as legitimate knowledge
producers. Scientists who have no location also cannot be gendered or
racialized. Disarticulating the body from race, location and gender,
reaffirms the positioning of the white and western man as the normative
and legitimate producer of science (Neimanis et al., 2014). The ‘Other’
must render themselves legible to fit in a western and masculine space
that assumes itself neutral.
When asking scientists to comment on barriers to participate in the
IPCC for self and for others, participants reported less barriers for
themselves than for others, barriers such as, religion, race, ethnicity,
age, nationality and gender. Without the stories above, these results
could be interpreted as an indication that race, gender etc. do not
M. Gay-Antaki
present barriers. The more accurate interpretation is that most scientists
do not perceive these factors as barriers because they are white, western,
heterosexual and (mostly) male. This seems like an accurate interpre­
tation since more than double of the respondents saw gender, nation­
ality, race, religion, ethnicity as a problem in ‘others’ and not in ‘self”.
By assuming objectivity, by separating ourselves from ourselves: our
bodies, our contexts, our worldviews, western science denies its
epistemic origin, declaring itself superior to other embodied ways of
knowing (Mignolo, 1999). This stance also negates our sociopolitical
positioning and how this informs the questions we ask, who we work
with, where we distribute our science (Agrawal, 1995; O’brien, 1993).
These actions constitute political decisions challenging the neutral and
objective claims of western science.
3.11. Gender relations in male dominated environments
Regarding gendered barriers for ‘self’ and ‘others’ such as experi­
encing or observing gender bias or discrimination including sexual
harassment, women reported experiencing many of these more than
men.
Sexual harassment was reported by 5 women under the category
‘Occasionally’ and 7 under the category ‘Once’. 33 respondents reported
witnessing it in others. Other gendered barriers were reported
frequently: comments about appearance, 50 and 63 for ‘self’ and
‘others’; being patronized 60 and 111; ignored 74 and 133; implications
of gender-biased nomination 48 and 67. 72% of negative experiences
were reported by women for self and 69% in others, even though they
only constituted 40% of respondents indicating that women are more
likely to experience discrimination and observe it happening to others.
Recent research around gender ideologies in male-dominated academic
disciplines by Banchefsky and Park (2018) found that male-dominated
work environments often possess masculine cultures that are unwel­
coming to women. Rather than perceiving difference as a positive
addition to the group, male-dominated settings expect others to assim­
ilate to masculine work norms. This expectation to assimilate inhibits
perceiving those who are not male and western as legitimate knowledge
producers. For instance, a scientist expressed: “many people implied I
was only selected in AR3 because of my gender (which honestly, I also
ended up thinking myself so strong is the peer pressure)”. The belief of
science as an objective practice allows those who have never questioned
their legitimacy to conduct business as usual while placing the burden of
fairer participation onto those who are already underrepresented and
overburdened. The structures that have disproportionately leveraged
our normative understanding of what science is and who is a legitimate
knowledge producer are the same structures that impede others from
fully participating fostering feelings of inadequacy.
Understanding that there are barriers outside of one’s individual
capacities is important if we want to keep underrepresented scientists in
the pipeline. A scientist expressed: “I did a lot of work for the IPCC and
somehow my feeling is I never really received internal recognition.
Somehow, I have this linked with my gender, although it is difficult to
really rationalise it with facts”. The scientists above would be empow­
ered to know that their feelings regarding gendered barriers in science
are valid and supported not only in this study but widely in the literature
(Shen, 2013). Conversations about discriminatory practices are forcing
many to begin to attend to these barriers, as a scientist expressed: “Just
because I don’t see these types of exchanges doesn’t mean others don’t
feel targets of them” and another “[t]here were accusations of direct
gender bias that I did not notice yet assume that it happened, and we
tried to work out a solution and way forward by talking through
extensively”.
However, much work must be done as is evident by responses to the
final questions that asked for recommendations to improve gender
balance, representation and influence in future reports. And whether it
would be helpful to include gender (or other sensitivity training) in IPCC
procedures. One scientist expressed “I can’t see there is a problem” even
8
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
though 41% of respondents, 55% of women, 33% of men, expressed a
need for gender or other sensitivity training. 41% feeling neutral. 59 out
of 316 respondents answered no to trainings. The responses range from
those who believe that the training should happen outside of the IPCC, to
those who believe that there is nothing that needs to be changed. Many
barriers elucidated by this survey are not solely relegated to the IPCC,
but the IPCC supports exclusionary structures, so it becomes important
to recognize these barriers.
The intention of this paper is not to provide a laundry list of solutions
but to elucidate the institutional barriers that impede many scientists
from fully participating in the report. Scientists’ recommendations
appear in the IPCC gender task group report. I share one response here:
“train your Chairs and CLAs. Set rules for speaking in groups. Circulate
guidance on unconscious bias, and make sure everyone watches
everyone else (it is much easier to spot bias in someone else than in
yourself). Explain why this is important for the quality of the report, it is
not just for what it looks but because the report is stronger in the end if
everyone contributes. The Royal Society has an excellent booklet on this:
https://royalsociety.
org/topics-policy/publications/2015/unconscious-bias/”.
4. Conclusions
The survey shows a growing concern around inequity in science and
a mostly positive view around increasing diversity. Nevertheless, old,
commonplace fears are expressed about the danger of opening the door
to others and the negative impact this will have on the quality of science.
While the overall responses and experiences at the IPCC were deemed
positive, there were many scientists who reported negative experiences,
hampering their ability to contribute to science. These experiences un­
derscore a strong gender dimension and were reported more frequently
as happening to women from the Global South.
Inspired by geographers who incorporate the humanities in their
work (Castree et al., 2014; Hawkins, 2015; Hones, 2008; Lando, 1996;
Magrane, 2015; Marston and leeuw, 2019; Matless, 2016; Moezzi et al.,
2017), I used Luiselli’s novel as a guide to extend qualitative analysis
and include storytelling to elucidate the diverse scientific body already
participating in the IPCC and their experiences. While studies have
provided important information about gendered and western barriers to
accessing climate science (Banchefsky and Park, 2018; Bian et al., 2017;
Hunt, 2016; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014; Shen, 2013; Wenneras and Wold,
2001), telling stories materializes these barriers, gives us insight into
what they look like and how they are maintained, and consequently how
we can address them.
The stories underscore that those who command the space, believe
they are the superior scientists and claim superiority by positioning
themselves as global experts, even though their status depends on con­
nections, experience and familiarity with the IPCC. More recently, their
authority is being challenged by scientists who believe that regional
expertise is equally or more important, do not equate experience at IPCC
with scientific talent, and do not believe that western men have a natural
proclivity for climate science. The qualitative analysis of the survey finds
that a major barrier to access science is the persistent belief that science
is an objective and neutral practice. Western science has claimed supe­
riority from traditional or indigenous knowledge by distancing itself
from its context and from the daily lives of people (Agrawal, 1995).
Disarticulating the body from race, location and gender, reaffirms the
positioning of white, masculine, and western as the normative and
legitimate producer of science.
The paper attends not to the individuals that make the space less
welcoming, but to the structures that support such behavior. To truly
address barriers to participate in science we must shift our attention
from individual actions toward structural and systemic barriers that
have historically disadvantaged women and people of color from
actively contributing to science. Pulido’s (2000) work on environmental
racism uses the concept of white privilege to underscore the
M. Gay-Antaki
participation of privileged members of society in maintaining racist
structures even if they do not commit individual racist acts. Similarly,
the concept of white privilege, and male privilege illustrates the struc­
tures to participate in science that give preference to those who are
white and male at the expense of women and people of color. Attention
to the structures, and not individual acts, will force scientists to see how
they are implicated in reinforcing structures that are exclusive and thus
begin to challenge and transform them.
Feminist geographical insights of the survey underscored the deeply
rooted western assumptions of objective science and thus provided
context for the scientists who had historically dominated the IPCC
report, highlighting that the practice of climate science is context spe­
cific and thus not objective. The paper brought attention to the inter­
secting structures that exclude diverse scientists from participating in
climate science and elucidated how climate knowledge has been pro­
duced, circulated, and legitimized in the IPCC and how gendered dy­
namics are shifting social relations in the space which in turn might be
having an impact in the knowledge produced and circulated in the IPCC.
Feminist objectivity underscored that the spaces that we inhabit influ­
ence what we know and what we can know as subjects of knowledge.
Different positionings will lead us to ask different questions, conduct
different research and build different partnerships, producing different
types of knowledge that serve different purposes. By collecting diverse
and partial views of the IPCC survey into a collective subject position,
this paper elucidated the situated positions of diverse scientists, creating
a vision from somewhere to better work within the limits and contra­
dictions of climate science.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank and acknowledge all the participants
of the IPCC Gender Task Force, including Diana Liverman, Markku
Rummukainen, Patricia Nying’uro, Niki vonHedemann and Kerstin
Stendahl for their efforts in creating the IPCC Gender Survey. The cre­
ation and distribution of this survey was crucial for this work. The
author would also like to acknowledge the time and dedication from
IPCC scientists for their thorough and thoughtful responses to the sur­
vey. Many thanks go to Amparo Martinez director of the National
Institute of Ecology and Climate Change for the opportunity to represent
Mexico in the Gender Task Force.
References
Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Dev. Change 26, 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x.
Anzaldua, G., 2002. now let us shift…the path of conocimiento...inner work, public acts.
In: Anzaldúa, Gloria Keating, A. (Eds.), This Bridge We Call Home Radical Visions for
Transformation. Routledge, New York, pp. 540–578. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203952962-87.
Banchefsky, S., Park, B., 2018. Negative gender ideologies and gender-science
stereotypes are more pervasive in male-dominated academic disciplines. Soc. Sci. 7,
27. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7020027.
Beasley, M.A., Fischer, M.J., 2012. Why they leave: the impact of stereotype threat on the
attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Soc.
Psychol. Educ. 15, 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3.
Besio, K., 2005. Telling stories to hear autoethnography: researching women’s lives in
northern Pakistan. Gender, Place Cult. 12, 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09663690500202566.
Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., 2017. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability
emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science (80-.). 389–391.
Blickenstaff, J.C., 2005. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gend. Educ. 17, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.
Blunt, A., Rose, G., 1994. Writing Women and Space : Colonial and Postcolonial
Geographies. Guilford Press.
9
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
Buck, G.A., Plano Clark, V.L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., Cerda-Lizarraga, P., 2008.
Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in
identifying science role models: a feminist approach. Sci. Educ. 92, 688–707.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20257.
Cameron, E., 2012. New geographies of story and storytelling. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36,
573–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511435000.
Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E., Rinehart, J., 2013. Gender-heterogeneous
working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One 8, e79147. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147.
Carey, M., Jackson, M., Antonello, A., Rushing, J., 2016. Glaciers, gender, and science: a
feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research. Prog.
Hum. Geogr. 40, 770–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623368.
Castilla, E.J., 2008. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. Am. J.
Sociol. 113, 1479–1526.
Castree, N., Adams, W.M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Büscher, B., Corbera, E., Demeritt,
D., Duffy, R., Felt, U., Neves, K., Newell, P., Pellizzoni, L., Rigby, K., Robbins, P.,
Robin, L., Rose, D.B., Ross, A., Schlosberg, D., Sörlin, S., West, P., Whitehead, M.,
Wynne, B., 2014. Changing the intellectual climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. doi:10.1038/
nclimate2339.
Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M., 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s
underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 3157–3162.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
Ceci, S.J., Ginther, D.K., Kahn, S., Williams, W.M., 2014. Women in academic science: a
changing landscape. Public Interest 15, 75–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1529100614541236.
Ceglie, R., 2011. Underrepresentation of Women of Color in the Science Pipeline: the
construction of science identities. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 17, 271–293. https://
doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2011003010.
Christensen, J., 2012. Telling stories: exploring research storytelling as a meaningful
approach to knowledge mobilization with Indigenous research collaborators and
diverse audiences in community-based participatory research. Can. Geogr. / Le
Géographe Can. 56, 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00417.x.
Clancy, K.B.H., Lee, K.M.N., Rodgers, E.M., Richey, C., 2017. Double jeopardy in
astronomy and planetary science: women of color face greater risks of gendered and
racial harassment. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 122, 1610–1623. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017JE005256.
Conron, K.J., Scout, Austin, S.B., 2008. Everyone has a right to, like, check their box:
findings on a measure of gender identity from a cognitive testing study with
adolescents. J. LGBT Health Res. 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15574090802412572.
Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H., Paterson, M., 2015. Patterns of authorship in the
IPCC Working Group III report. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 94–99. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nclimate2782.
Curiel Pichardo, O., 2015. Construyendo metodologías feministas desde el feminismo
decolonial, in: Irantzu,Mendia Azkue Luxán, Marta Legarreta, M., Guzmán, GLoria
Ziriorballo, I., Azpiazu Carballo, J. (Eds.), Otras Formas de (Re)Conocer: Reflexiones,
Herramientas y Aplicaciones Desde La Investigación Feminista. Hegoa::
Publicaciones, Bilbao, p. 175.
Dahlstrom, M.F., 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with
nonexpert audiences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 13614–13620. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111.
Daniels, S., DeLyser, D., Entrikin, N., Richardson, D., 2012. Envisioning landscapes,
Making Worlds : Geography and the Humanities. Routledge.
Day, J.K., O’Brien, W., 2017. Oh behave! Survey stories and lessons learned from
building occupants in high-performance buildings. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 31, 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.037.
Dean, C., Osborn, M., Oshlack, A., Thornton, J., 2012. Women in Science. Genome Biol.
13, 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-3-148.
Drury, B.J., Siy, J.O., Cheryan, S., 2011. When do female role models benefit women?
The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychol. Inq.
22, 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935.
Fraser, G., 2018. Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative
psychological research. Psychol. Sex. 9, 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19419899.2018.1497693.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25,
739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
Gay-Antaki, M., 2020b. Grounding climate governance through women’s stories in
Oaxaca, Mexico. Gender, Place Cult. 1–24 https://doi.org/10.1080/
0966369X.2020.1789563.
Gay-Antaki, M., Liverman, D., 2018. Climate for women in climate science: Women
scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A. 115, 2060–2065. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710271115.
Gay-Antaki, M., 2020a. Ciencia, in: De Luca Zuria, A., Fosado Centeno, E., Velazquez
Gutierrez, M. (Eds.), Feminismo Socioambiental. Revitalizando El Debate Desde
América Latina. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Centro Regional de
Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, Mexico City, pp. 180–198. doi:10.22201/
crim.9786073034722e.2020.
Gender, T.G. on, 2019. Report From the IPCC Task Group on Gender.
Goulden, M., Mason, M.A., Frasch, K., 2011. Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline.
Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 638, 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002716211416925.
Grasswick, H., 2014. Climate change science and responsible trust: a situated approach.
Hypatia 29, 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12090.
Grosfoguel, R., 2007. The epistemic decolonial turn: Beyond political-economy
paradigms. Cult. Stud. 21, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514.
M. Gay-Antaki
Hackmann, H., Moser, S.C., St. Clair, A.L., 2014. The social heart of global environmental
change. Nat. Clim. Chang. doi:10.1038/nclimate2320.
Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14, 575–599.
Harding, S., 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
and London.
Harding, S., 1998. Women, science, and society. Science (80-.) 281, 1599–1600. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5383.1599.
Harding, S.G., 2006. Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues.
University of Illinois Press.
Harding, S., 2016. Latin American decolonial social studies of scientific knowledge. Sci.
Technol. Hum. Values 41, 1063–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0162243916656465.
Harris, D.M., 2020. Telling stories about climate change. Prof. Geogr. 72, 309–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2019.1686996.
Hawkins, H., 2015. Creative geographic methods: knowing, representing, intervening.
On composing place and page. Cult. Geogr. 22, 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1474474015569995.
Hawkins, H., 2019. Geography’s creative (re)turn: toward a critical framework. Prog.
Hum. Geogr. 43, 963–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518804341.
Hones, S., 2008. Text as it happens: literary geography. Geogr. Compass 2, 1301–1317.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-8198.2008.00143.X.
Hulme, M., 2010. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 20, 558–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.005.
Hulme, M., 2011. Commentary: meet the humanities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 177–179.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1150.
Hunt, J., 2016. Why do women leave science and engineering? Ind. Labor Relations Rev.
doi:10.1177/0019793915594597.
Kulik, C.T., Pepper, M.B., Roberson, L., Parker, S.K., 2007. The rich get richer: predicting
participation in voluntary diversity training. J. Organ. Behav. 28, 753–769. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.444.
Lando, F., 1996. Fact and fiction: geography and literature: A bibliographic survey on
JSTOR. GeoJournal 38, 3–18.
Liverman, D., vonHedemann, N., Nying’uro, P., Rummukainen, M., Stendahl, K., Gay-
Antaki, M., Craig, M., Aguilar, L., Bynoe, P., Call, F., Connors, S., David, L.,
Ferrone, A., Hayward, B., Jayawardena, S., Mai Touray, L., Parikh, J., Pathak, M.,
Perez, R., Pirani, A., Prakash, A., Textor, C., Tibig, L., Tignor, M., Tugac, C., Vera, C.,
Wagle, R., Zabula, W., et al., IPCC Gender Task Force, 2021. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change seeks to understand and address gender barriers and bias.
Nature Commentary. In press.
Loder, N., 1999. Gender discrimination undermines science. Nature 402, 337. https://
doi.org/10.1038/46379.
Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R.,
Vasileiadou, E., 2015. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science
can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Chang. 32,
211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.
Lugones, M., 2010. Toward a Decolonial Feminism. Hypatia 25, 742–759. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01137.x.
Luiselli, V., 2017. Los niños perdidos: Un ensayo en cuarenta preguntas. Editorial Sexto
Piso, Mexico City.
Magrane, E., 2015. Situating Geopoetics. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2373566X.2015.1071674.
Mahony, M., Hulme, M., 2018. Epistemic geographies of climate change. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 42, 395–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516681485.
Mannix, E., Neale, M.A., 2005. What differences make a difference? Psychol. Sci. Public
Interes. 6, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x.
Marston, S.A., leeuw, S. De, 2019. Creativity and Geography: Toward A Politicized
Intervention*. doi:10.1111/gere.12001 103. 10.1111/GERE.12001.
Matless, D., 2016. Climate change stories and the Anthroposcenic. Nat. Clim. Chang. doi:
10.1038/nclimate2862.
10
Global Environmental Change 71 (2021) 102384
Maynard, M., 1997. Science and the construction of women. UCL Press.
Mcbean, S., 2014. What Stories Make Worlds , What Worlds Make Stories : Margaret, in:
Evans, M., Hemmings, C., Henry, M., Johnstone, H., Madhok, S., Plomien, A.,
Wearing, S. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Feminist Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd,
pp. 149–162.
McCall, B., Shallcross, L., Wilson, M., Fuller, C., Hayward, A., 2019. Storytelling as a
research tool and intervention around public health perceptions and behaviour: A
protocol for a systematic narrative review. BMJ Open 9, e030597. https://doi.org/
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030597.
Meneghini, R., Packer, A.L., 2007. Is there science beyond English? EMBO Rep. 8,
112–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400906.
Mignolo, W.D., 1999. I am where i think: epistemology and the colonial difference.
J. Lat. Am. Cult. Stud. 8, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569329909361962.
Moezzi, M., Janda, K.B., Rotmann, S., 2017. Using stories, narratives, and storytelling in
energy and climate change research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.034.
Nast, H.J., 1994. Women in the field: critical feminist methodologies and theoretical
perspectives*. Prof. Geogr. 46, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-
0124.1994.00054.x.
Neimanis, A., 2014. Natural Others? Nature, Culture and Knowledge. In: Evans, Mary
(Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Feminist Theory. Sage, London, pp. 26–44.
O’brien, M.H., 1993. Being a scientist means taking sides. Bioscience 43, 706–708.
Ong, M., 2005. Body projects of young women of color in physics: intersections of
gender, race, and science. Soc. Probl. 52, 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1525/
sp.2005.52.4.593.
Pawley, A., Phillips, C., 2014. From the mouths of students: Two illustrations of narrative
analysis to understand engineering education’s ruling relations as gendered and
raced. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Pulido, L., 2000. Rethinking environmental racism: white privilege and urban
development in southern California. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90, 12–40. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0004-5608.00182.
Raymond, J., 2013. Sexist attitudes: most of us are biased. Nature 495, 33–34. https://
doi.org/10.1038/495033a.
Rice, J.L., Burke, B.J., Heynen, N., 2015. Knowing Climate Change, Embodying Climate
Praxis: Experiential Knowledge in Southern Appalachia. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
105, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.985628.
Rivera Cusicanqui, S., 2012. Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: A reflection on the practices and
discourses of decolonization. South Atl. Q. doi:10.1215/00382876-1472612.
Ross, H.J., 2015. Everyday bias: identifying and navigating unconscious judgments in
our daily lives. Choice Rev. Online 52, 52-3373-52–3373. doi:10.5860/
choice.188102.
Saloranta, T.M., 2001. Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Clim.
Change 50, 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010636822581.
Settles, I.H., Cortina, L.M., Malley, J., Stewart, A.J., 2006. The climate for women in
academic science: the good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychol. Women Q. 30,
47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.
Sheltzer, J.M., Smith, J.C., 2014. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer
women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 10107–10112. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1403334111.
Shen, H., 2013. Inequality quantified: mind the gender gap. Nature 495, 22–24. https://
doi.org/10.1038/495022a.
Steele, C., 2011. Whistling Vivaldi : How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. W.
W. Norton & Co.
Tate, C.C., Ledbetter, J.N., Youssef, C.P., 2013. A two-question method for assessing
gender categories in the social and medical sciences. J. Sex Res. 50, 767–776.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.690110.
Wenneras, C., Wold, A., 2001. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Women, Sci.
Technol.