Highlighting altruism in geoscience careers aligns with diverse US student ideals better than emphasizing working outdoors

The geosciences have struggled to attract and retain a diverse workforce representative of the U.S. population. While efforts to improve gender balance have shown some success, ethnic and racial diversity remain significantly low across all degree levels. This underrepresentation is particularly stark among Hispanic, Black, African American, and Native American students, who are vastly underrepresented in both undergraduate and graduate programs, and faculty positions. This lack of diversity not only hinders equity and social justice but also limits scientific advancement, as diverse perspectives and life experiences are crucial for innovation and creative problem-solving. To address this, the study investigates the factors that influence college students' career aspirations, specifically focusing on whether emphasis on outdoor work or altruistic factors is more effective in attracting a diverse pool of geoscience students. Current recruitment strategies heavily emphasize field experiences and outdoor work, which is a self-selecting strategy and is not attractive to the general student population. Understanding the values and priorities of prospective students is essential for creating effective recruitment strategies that broaden participation in the geosciences and align with the demographic shifts expected in the U.S. by 2050. The study hypothesizes that highlighting the altruistic potential of geoscience careers will be a more effective approach to recruiting underrepresented minority students.

Previous research highlights the mixed success of efforts to broaden participation in the geosciences among underrepresented groups. While progress has been made in addressing gender imbalances, ethnic and racial diversity remains the lowest among STEM fields. Studies have shown that less than 16% of geoscience bachelor's degrees and fewer than 7% of geoscience PhDs were awarded to underrepresented minority students in recent years. The underrepresentation of women and minority students is particularly concerning, creating a workforce not reflective of society. Previous studies have examined the factors influencing students' choices of geoscience majors, often focusing on the importance of outdoor experiences and field-based learning. However, this research often neglects the broader context of career ideals and values among prospective students. There is a growing body of research on the importance of communal goals (intimacy, affiliation, altruism) and agentic goals (power, achievement, excitement) in shaping career aspirations. This study builds upon this research by examining the relative importance of these goals among students and investigating how they relate to perceptions of geoscience careers. It addresses a gap in the literature by investigating this from the prospective of the student.

This study utilized a survey administered to students enrolled in College Algebra at a large, urban, Hispanic-serving institution in the southwestern U.S. The sample included 1550 students across five semesters, with approximately equal representation of male and female students and a high proportion (55.3%) of underrepresented minority (URM) students. The survey employed a Likert scale to assess students' agreement with statements describing their ideal career, focusing on six factors: helping people and society, helping the environment, making a lot of money, having prestige, working outdoors, and working in an office. Students also rated their perceptions of careers in geoscience, biology, and engineering based on these same factors. Demographic questions including gender, ethnicity, age, first-generation college status, and major were also collected. Nonparametric statistical techniques, including Spearman's rank-order correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test, were used to analyze the data due to the ordinal nature of the Likert scale responses. Friedman tests were performed to compare perceptions of geoscience with other STEM fields. Bonferroni corrections were applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. The study acknowledges limitations due to its cross-sectional nature, use of single-item measures, and focus on a single institution. The researchers excluded 61 surveys with invalid responses, which were mostly from male students but maintained a similar ethnic distribution to the total survey.

The survey revealed that students consistently ranked "helping people and society" and "helping the environment" as the most important factors in their ideal career, significantly higher than factors related to personal achievement (making money, having prestige) or work environment (working outdoors, working in an office). There was a strong positive correlation between the importance of helping people and helping the environment. Female respondents rated altruistic factors more highly than male respondents, while male URM students rated personal achievement factors higher than non-URM male students. There was no significant difference in responses based on first-generation college status. Comparison of geoscience with other STEM fields indicated that students perceived geoscience careers less favorably in terms of altruistic outcomes and earning potential. Only 13.1% strongly agreed or agreed that they knew what careers existed in the geosciences, compared to 58.8% for biology. Analysis comparing male and female responses show female respondents placed a higher importance on altruistic factors and less importance on personal achievement factors and work location (especially working outdoors), while male respondents rated agentic goals higher. Significant differences between male and female responses were identified on all factors except working in an office. Among ethnicity, URM and non-URM female students responded similarly, with a key difference in the male groups where male URM students rated personal achievement factors as more important. There was no significant difference in responses between first-generation and non-first-generation college students.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating a significant disconnect between current geoscience recruitment strategies and the values of prospective students, particularly those from underrepresented groups. The emphasis on outdoor work in current recruitment efforts is not aligned with the priorities of a majority of students, who place a much higher value on altruistic outcomes. The strong preference for altruistic factors, particularly among female respondents, highlights the need for recruitment materials to emphasize the societal impact and environmental benefits of geoscience careers. The lower perception of geoscience careers in terms of altruistic impact and earning potential compared to other STEM fields suggests a need for improved communication about the diverse range of opportunities within geoscience and the positive societal contributions of the field. Addressing the lack of awareness regarding geoscience careers is crucial to attract a more diverse pool of applicants.

This study demonstrates that focusing on the altruistic aspects of geoscience careers is a more effective recruitment strategy than emphasizing outdoor work. The strong preference for altruistic factors among students, especially women, suggests a need to shift recruitment efforts to highlight the societal and environmental benefits of the field. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of interventions designed to showcase the altruistic contributions of geoscience careers. Additionally, there is a need for creating programs that increase awareness and knowledge of diverse career paths within geoscience.

The study's limitations include its cross-sectional design, which prevents conclusions about causal relationships between values and career choices. The use of single-item measures for some constructs may limit the precision of the findings. The sample is drawn from a single institution, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. The study also acknowledges that participation in the survey could have been affected by extra credit incentives. These factors should be considered when interpreting the results.