This article was originally published on Forbes. Head to the sustainability channel for more content like this.
Running the forensics on the diversity of the scientific community responsible for academic climate research has unveiled stark truths about the power imbalance and lack of representation of the population most exposed to the climate emergency.
A newly published study by Carbon Brief analysed 100 of the most cited research papers on climate over the last five years and has revealed glaring inequalities related to gender and countries of affiliation of academic authors.
The timing of the findings are poignant given that earlier in October, black scientists in the academic community have called for reform on the UK research system which is deemed to be institutionally racist.
The Carbon Brief analysis found that from 1,300 authors of the 100 papers published from 2016-2020, a mere 1% were based in Africa.
This is a sharp contrast to the domination of regions from the global north, whereby 90% of scientists included in the study were connected to academic institutions in Europe, North America and Australia. Further investigation uncovered that only 12 of the 100 papers had female lead authors, presenting compounding evidence about the gender gap that exists.
Ayesha Tandon, climate science journalist for Carbon Brief noted that “It is sobering to see that those most vulnerable to climate change – women and the people from the global south – are so drastically under-represented in climate science research”. These groups of society are particularly exposed to the environmental, and socio-economic consequences of runaway climate change yet their voices are often left in the shadows.
These results mirror the lack of diversity in the Reuters Hot List of the world’s 1000 ‘top climate scientists’ of which only 5 scientists included were African and a mere 122 women.
Gender gap and systemic bias exist in climate science
The investigation resurfaces salient discussions about how best to decolonise academia and address the gender gap that exists in scientific research.
Within the top 100 papers, female authors were found to account for less than half of the total authors in every continent analysed. In Europe, North America, Oceania and Asia, the total percentage of female authors was 20%, 35%, 29% and 23%, respectively. This data echoes insights from the Unesco Institute for Statistics which found that less than 30% of the world’s researchers are women. It also compliments the findings of a survey conducted by PNAS of more than 100 female authors of IPCC reports which found that 43% believed that female climate researchers are not well represented in the climate community.
Tandon remarks that “Biases in authorship mean that the existing bank of knowledge around climate change is skewed towards the interests of male authors from the global north, creating blind spots around the needs of women and communities in the global south.”
At a country level, the research established that the U.S., Australia and U.K. account for over half of all the authors in the analysis. In Africa, a continent with more than 50 countries, only 10 authors are represented– eight of whom were from South Africa.
A similar picture exists in Asia where one nation has dominated the research contributions – China and accounts for 6% of all researchers. Countries like Vietnam which are set to be ravaged by extreme weather events, rising sea levels and intensified monsoon seasons, had no presence.
Continuing with this discourse can have severe ramifications, as knowledge production is geared towards the vested interests of the global north. Determining the path of corrective action for climate adaptation for those living in the shadows in the global south may be misguided and less well informed on policymaking in line with cultural and societal norms.
Levelling this playing field requires redressing of investment into research funding. Tandon cites that while the U.S. dedicates more than 2.5% of its annual GDP to “research and development”, no country in sub-Saharan Africa – even the comparably rich South Africa – spends more than 1%.
With the announcement of £1.2 billion investment for the U.K.’s Met Office supercomputer to detect weather and climate patterns, it is hard to envision how poorer nations grappling with ongoing territorial conflicts, economic poverty and climate displacement, could afford such infrastructure and technology.
Solutions to erode the systemic biases that exist are multifaceted and interconnected. One critical factor is to stimulate the research agenda in the hope of amplifying the voices of the marginalised as well as speaking directly to vulnerable communities on the ground. This could help inform a bottom-up approach that guides successful intervention strategies.
The Carbon Brief study puts forward that the climate research community must broaden its horizons to include new experts and encourage a diverse range of perspectives. A means to do so is through healthy research collaborations of academic institutions between the global north and south. Tandon adds nuance to this stating “Colleagues from developing countries must be treated as equals, and there needs to be a focus on building capacity in developing countries rather than simply extracting resources and leaving.”
Lack of diversity in climate research mirrored in country representation at COP26
The inequitable nature of the academic community extends beyond research and into key climate discussions. COP26, to be hosted in November, has come under fire for the lack of diversity in attendees. So much so that in September, over 1500 NGOS called on the negotiations to be delayed as nations in the global south struggle with the roll out of their vaccination schemes and to travel to Scotland in line with host country regulations.
Whilst the tangible and accelerating effects of runaway climate change become visible in everyday life across the globe, delaying the conference for another year would be a controversial decision. How to ensure all voices have a seat at the table represents a moral quandary for the climate research community. Yet, it should be a priority for all those involved in climate negotiations and policymaking in order to include the voices of those most endangered to the emergency in the hope of creating the most effective and successful long-term adaptation policies.
If you enjoyed this article, read more on the S & S climate channel here.
Join hundreds of other readers and subscribe to the Sustainable & Social newsletter: