4.7 Article

Overcoming the Obstacles Faced by Early Career Researchers in Marine Science: Lessons From the Marine Ecosystem Assessment for the Southern Ocean

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00692

关键词

ECR; mentorship; diversity and inclusion; polar science; interdisciplinarity

资金

  1. Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre
  2. PEW Charitable Trusts
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. Juan de la Cierva-Incorporacion of Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades [IJCI-2017-31478]
  5. NSF [1840927]
  6. FONDECYT [POSTDOCTORADO 3180152]
  7. CONICYT [FONDAP-IDEAL 15150003]
  8. United Kingdom Natural Environment Research Council [NE/S000348/1]
  9. IMAS
  10. University of Tasmania (UTAS) Tasmanian Graduate Research Scholarship
  11. Australian Research Council [FL160100131]
  12. NERC [NE/S000348/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pressure in academia and science is rapidly increasing and early career researchers (ECRs) have a lot to gain from being involved in research initiatives such as large international projects. But just how inclusive are they? Here we discuss experiences of ECRs directly involved in the Marine Ecosystem Assessment for the Southern Ocean (MEASO), an Australian led international research project to assess the status and trends of Southern Ocean ecosystems. We review the benefits of ECR involvement in largescale initiatives to the project deliverables, the leadership team and ECRs themselves. Using insights from MEASO, we outline the obstacles that may become barriers to ECRs in scientific research in general but with a focus on large-scale research projects and suggest potential actions to overcome these at the individual, institutional and scientific community level. We consider the potential for ECRs to lead future Antarctic science programmes with a focus on science communication and applied research for policy makers within a global setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据