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

The study addresses persistent underrepresentation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the geosciences despite decades of diversity efforts. While geoscience recruitment commonly highlights outdoor and field experiences, it is unclear whether this approach aligns with what early undergraduate students value in careers. The authors test three questions: (i) whether altruistic factors, personal achievement, or work environment are most important to early-stage college students when envisioning an ideal career; (ii) whether these ideals differ by gender, URM status, and first-generation college status; and (iii) how students’ perceptions of geoscience careers on these ideals compare with biology and engineering. The goal is to inform strategies to attract and retain a more diverse geoscience student body by aligning recruitment messages with student values.

Prior work indicates that diversity spurs innovation and is essential to meeting workforce needs, yet geosciences lag other STEM fields in racial/ethnic diversity at all degree levels and faculty ranks. Research on communal (altruistic, affiliative) versus agentic (achievement, power) goals shows women tend to endorse communal goals more highly, and fields perceived as offering communal goal fulfillment (e.g., biology, health) attract more women. Geoscience recruitment often centers on outdoor experiences, a factor influential among current geoscience majors, but it may be self-selecting and misaligned with broader student values. Programs that highlight career opportunities, partnerships with minority-serving institutions, and place-based courses have shown promise for recruiting underrepresented students into geosciences. The literature suggests that emphasizing altruistic outcomes and communal goal affordances could improve interest and participation, particularly among women and URM students.

Design and setting: An online survey was administered to students enrolled in College Algebra at a large, urban, Hispanic-serving, R1 public university in the southwestern United States during the first week of classes over five semesters (Fall 2018–Spring 2020). Participation was voluntary with extra credit offered; 79.5% of enrolled students completed the survey (1611/2026). IRB approval: The University of Texas at Arlington IRB# 2017-0717.3. Sample: Of 1611 responses, 61 were excluded for invalid/minimally engaged patterns, yielding 1550 for analysis. Gender: 50.0% female, 50.0% male. Ethnicity: 33.7% Hispanic, 29.3% White, 19.5% Black/African American, 13.9% Asian, 3.4% other, 0.2% Native American. URM defined as Hispanic, Black/African American, or Native American (53.4%, n=828). First-generation college students comprised 51.7% (n=801). Average age 19.8 years (SD=4.1), and most had completed fewer than two semesters. Instrument: Primarily five-point Likert items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Career ideals included six single-item measures: (1) helping people and society; (2) helping the environment; (3) making a lot of money; (4) having prestige; (5) working outdoors; (6) working in an office. Perceptions of careers in biology, engineering, and geoscience were assessed on analogous items (including altruistic opportunities, making money, career knowledge, and perceived difficulty of finding a job). Demographics were placed at the end to mitigate stereotype threat. Cronbach’s alpha across the six career ideal items was 0.45, indicating they were not combined into a single scale. Data handling and composites: Due to moderate correlation, altruistic items (helping people/society and helping the environment) were combined; Spearman’s r=0.478, p<0.001. Personal achievement items (making money, having prestige) were combined; r=0.382, p<0.001. Work environment items were analyzed separately due to lack of correlation. For STEM field perceptions, altruistic items were similarly combined per field. Statistical analyses: Nonparametric methods appropriate for ordinal data were used. Group comparisons employed Mann–Whitney U-tests with Bonferroni corrections within families of tests; effect sizes reported as r. Associations assessed with Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Comparisons of field perceptions across biology, engineering, and geoscience used Friedman tests with Kendall’s W effect sizes and post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted). Chi-square tests confirmed no significant differences across semesters. Supplementary materials provide full item wording, descriptive statistics, and additional tests.

- Career ideals ranking: Altruistic factors were rated most important by the student sample. • Helping people and society: 96.8% agree/strongly agree (SA/A), 3.0% neutral (N), 0.1% disagree/strongly disagree (SD/D). • Helping the environment: 92.6% SA/A, 6.8% N, 0.6% SD/D. • These two altruistic items correlated moderately to strongly (Spearman r=0.478, p<0.001) and were combined for analysis. - Personal achievement factors were important but less so than altruism: • Making a lot of money: 67.1% SA/A, 28.4% N, 4.5% SD/D. • Having prestige: 54.3% SA/A, 35.2% N, 10.6% SD/D. • Correlated moderately (r=0.382, p<0.001) and combined. - Work environment factors were least important and largely rated neutral: • Working outdoors: 30.4% SA/A, 51.0% N, 18.6% SD/D. • Working in an office: 20.1% SA/A, 53.6% N, 26.3% SD/D. - Gender differences (Mann–Whitney U with Bonferroni correction): • Females rated altruistic factors higher than males (All male − All female difference = −0.16; effect size r=0.16; significant at 99%). • Males rated working outdoors higher than females (difference = 0.19; r=0.11; significant at 99%). • Females rated personal achievement lower than males (difference = 0.14; r=0.10; not marked as significant at 99% in table). • No significant gender difference for working in an office. - Ethnicity and first-generation status: • Female URM vs female non-URM: no significant differences across factors. • Male URM rated personal achievement higher than male non-URM (difference = −0.18; r=0.12; significant at 99%). No significant differences for altruism or work location. • First-generation vs non-first-generation: no significant differences on any factor. - Perceptions of geoscience vs other STEM fields (Friedman tests and pairwise comparisons): • Students perceived biology and engineering more positively than geoscience on altruistic opportunities and ability to make a lot of money; differences significant at the 99% level with small-to-moderate effect sizes (see Table 2). • Knowledge of careers: only 13.1% agreed/strongly agreed that they have a good idea of careers in geoscience, versus 58.8% for biology, indicating a substantial knowledge gap likely affecting major choice. - Demographics context: The surveyed university is ~55% URM overall, but only 35% of Earth & Environmental Sciences majors were URM in Fall 2018, highlighting a local representation gap consistent with national trends.

The findings show that early undergraduate students prioritize altruistic outcomes—helping people, society, and the environment—over personal achievement and work setting. Females, regardless of URM status, particularly value altruistic factors, while males value outdoor work more and URM males place higher importance on personal achievement than non-URM males. These value profiles suggest that recruitment strategies emphasizing outdoor experiences may misalign with the majority of students’ ideals and could self-select toward those already inclined to field settings, potentially perpetuating underrepresentation. Students also perceive geoscience as offering fewer altruistic opportunities and lower earning potential than biology or engineering and report limited knowledge of geoscience careers, which can divert them toward fields perceived to better fulfill communal goals. Aligning geoscience outreach with communal goal affordances—such as emphasizing roles in hazard mitigation, water security, climate solutions, environmental justice, and community resilience—and improving visibility of diverse career pathways may increase interest and participation, particularly among women and URM students. Existing evidence from high school pipeline programs, MSI–university partnerships, and place-based courses supports the effectiveness of such approaches.

This study demonstrates that highlighting altruistic outcomes of geoscience careers aligns more closely with the career ideals of a diverse cohort of early undergraduate students than emphasizing outdoor work. Students, especially women, strongly endorse communal goals, yet perceive geoscience as less aligned with these goals and know little about its career pathways compared with biology and engineering. To broaden and diversify recruitment, geoscience education and outreach should showcase the field’s societal and environmental benefits and clarify career opportunities across laboratory, computational, field, and policy contexts. Future research should experimentally test whether messaging that emphasizes altruistic and communal goal affordances increases geoscience recruitment and retention among underrepresented groups, and evaluate which programmatic interventions (e.g., place-based curricula, MSI partnerships) are most effective at scale.

- Study design was a multiple-cohort, one-shot survey using single-item measures for each ideal, limiting measurement precision and precluding assessment of internal consistency across ideals (Cronbach’s alpha=0.45 for the six items). - Conducted at a single Hispanic-serving R1 university in the southwestern US with College Algebra students; findings may not generalize to all institutions or student populations. - No longitudinal data on actual major or career choices; thus alignment between stated values and subsequent behaviors could not be tested. - Extra credit incentive may introduce participation bias, although participation was high and demographics mirrored the university. - Small numbers of some groups (e.g., Native American students) limit subgroup analyses. - Perception comparisons rely on self-reported beliefs about fields rather than validated knowledge measures.