Oceanography | Vol. 36, No. 4
one figure, and no more than five refer-
ences. To eliminate repetition and imme-
diately capture readers’ attention, we
asked authors of these short articles to
focus their introductory paragraphs on
specific goals and exclude material that
would be covered in the longer keynote
articles, such as the national challenges or
statistics related to the lack of diversity in
the ocean sciences. We asked authors to
immediately get to the heart of the matter:
What are the barriers you are address-
ing and what did you do about it? Who
funded your program and what were the
program goals? Articles needed to briefly
describe the programs, including details
that would help readers adapt or mod-
ify their own approaches to address their
specific needs. We limited the results sec-
tions to describing, in broad terms, which
components of the programs were suc-
cessful, including retention statistics, if
available, and any additional pertinent/
constructive information. Importantly,
we asked authors of the spotlights to add
explicit “lessons learned” sections to their
manuscripts summarizing what worked
and what didn’t, including thoughts
about how they might change their pro-
grams going forward. We expect these
sections to be the most constructive and
informative for readers.
Many of the longer, externally peer-
reviewed articles follow roughly the same
format as the spotlights, though authors
had more leeway to expand the main arti-
cle sections, providing more background
information and references, details on
program motivations, descriptions, and
lessons learned. Our intent remained,
though, to not have authors include
detailed program assessments and evalu-
ations that might be more appropriate for
an education-focused journal. Rather, we
again asked authors to focus on sharing
their insights on effective practices used in
the design, structure, and function of their
programs that made them more inclusive,
equitable, and diverse; how projects were
modified over time and why; and what
did and did not work. Other articles break
out of the prescribed mold to focus more
on authors’ lived experiences.
Our editorial vision and goals evolved
as
spotlights
were
submitted
and
re viewed. Foremost in our thoughts was
that we did not wish to publish a typi-
cal series of journal articles. We wanted
this special issue to serve as a “hand-
book” that would share the knowledge
our community has gained in designing
and running programs that increase and
support diversity and that would high-
light the lived experiences of authors and
program participants. As our thinking
changed, we asked many authors to reim-
agine and rewrite their articles to better
fit the new paradigm.
While the bulk of the articles in this
special issue resulted from the letters of
interest we received, we invited program
managers from federal agencies sup-
porting this issue to weigh in. Over the
last several decades, millions of US fed-
eral dollars have been spent on funding
programs seeking to broaden participa-
tion in STEM (e.g., NSF, 2023b), but the
ocean sciences, and indeed the broader
geosciences, still have not made signif-
icant progress. A collaborative article
highlights the efforts of four US agen-
cies (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National
Science Foundation, and Office of Naval
Research) that have taken different, but
complementary, approaches to increasing
diversity in the ocean sciences. Similarly,
we solicited a collaborative article from
professional societies that are associ-
ated with aquatic science. We asked those
authors to discuss what the professional
societies have done, are doing, and plan
to do to increase diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the ocean sciences.
LANGUAGE
Language matters, and it evolves. As Craig
and Bhatt (2021) put it, “thoughtful use
of language can signal openness, inclusiv-
ity, admiration, and celebration, or sim-
ply be an expression of empathy and care
for our fellow humans.” Consistent with
those sentiments, we asked authors to
incorporate inclusive language in their
articles and not use deficit language
(e.g., minority). We gave authors leeway
to use terms they were most comfort-
able with rather than specifying the use
of particular terms, as long as deficit lan-
guage was avoided. For example, differ-
ent authors use the terms Latine, Latinx,
or Latina/Latino. Some authors preferred
the term “historically excluded groups,”
while others preferred “underrepresented
groups,” and others “marginalized com-
munities” or “marginalized identities.”
One term we did unify in this special
issue is using “White” uppercase, though
we recognize that other publications
have chosen to use “white,” and there
are arguments for both, as described
in many excellent commentaries avail-
able on the web.
FINAL THOUGHTS
With this special issue, we asked our
community to think differently and write
differently. The word “reimagine” came
up many times in discussions among
the guest editors and with authors. We
wanted authors to move beyond consid-
ering how to improve upon existing pro-
grams that have attempted to address the
diversity deficit in the past, and to think
about what programs and institutions
might look like if we started fresh, using
the knowledge and experience we have
gained over the decades and including the
voices of the diverse population we want
to embrace the ocean sciences, and STEM
in general. Many of the articles in this
special issue describe programs that have
taken that independent path, reimagin-
ing what truly inclusive programs might
look like—although it is clear that secur-
ing funding both over the long and short
terms remains challenging.
We hope that a special issue on diver-
sity, equity, and inclusion in the ocean
sciences a decade from now will be filled
with articles documenting how the ocean
sciences implemented course corrections
that resulted in a much larger and welcom-
ing tent for a diverse array of colleagues.
Right now, it’s an all-hands-on-deck need