Experience as an IPCC Author.

We asked about women’s most recent experiences in the IPCC, including their views as to why they were selected, whether they felt treated with respect, and whether their voice was heard (Fig. 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Fig. 1.

Most recent experiences participating in the IPCC.

Almost all our respondents were confident in their ability to contribute to the IPCC, and most were confident in their ability to challenge senior researchers when they had a different opinion. Eighty-two percent of women reported being treated with respect by their chairs and 87% by their coauthors. While most felt that they were listened to and could influence their own chapter, many felt that they had little impact in influencing the overall report. Sixty percent reported that discussions and writing of the IPCC report were controlled by only a few scientists, and half reported that the workload was not equally distributed.

The open-ended responses, where women could provide more detail on their experiences, were less positive. For example, several felt that more work was required from women than from men, but without appropriate credit. Others reported feeling marginalized and ignored: “I felt that IPCC scientists are in small impenetrable groups. . . . I didn’t feel welcome” and found “the IPCC process to be male dominated . . . by the older established men.” Other respondents wrote that “there was no equal opportunity to contribute . . . decisions were unilateral, nontransparent, a few scientists controlled the write-up” and “the leadership . . . [was] rather arrogant and not very inclusive. He only seemed to be interested in your opinion if you were an Ivy League-tenured, white male professor. In particular, researchers from developing countries felt excluded by him.” Another respondent told us that it seemed as if “some people’s views seemed more important than others, making information from some regions more important than others . . . rendering the whole exercise a big lie . . . it is a pity.” Some had different experiences over several assessments and received support from fellow authors: “there was one author of my chapter who occasionally did not treat me respectfully. He was arrogant and dismissive, but I prevailed through persistence and taking him on directly both inside meetings and in chapter meetings. My co-authors were also aligned with me, so I had their support.”

Women reporting positive experiences mentioned an overall inclusive, safe, and respectful atmosphere where they felt listened to and could make important contributions: “My chapter team were great people, we had really good discussions and a lot of fun. We all treated each other with respect. Most of us worked very hard. While there was one male in our group who talked a lot, the CLA would always make sure I got to make my point, and he often backed me up in discussions. . . . I always felt that my views were considered and I was listened to. We achieved balance across the literature, and distilled it, just as the IPCC should . . . there was a pleasant camaraderie and a mutual understanding of the different personalities in the group. In short, one of the best team efforts I have ever known!” Other women told us “I met extraordinary people, I strengthened my (belief) in responsibility and teamwork” and “I was in a chapter with a lot of senior female scientists which . . . made it easier for the younger and less experienced.”

Barriers to Participation and Influence.

We asked scientists whether gender, race, ethnicity, language, youth, and nationality were barriers to their and other women’s full participation in the IPCC (Fig. 2). Respondents saw few barriers to their own participation but reported problems for others. Fourteen percent saw their gender and 14% saw their command of English as barriers; 9% reported their race/ethnicity to be barriers. For example, one woman wrote “my responses for ‘others’ . . . are only a guess at some of the difficulties that I think that some of the developing country representatives must have.” Seventy-five percent saw lack of English ability as a barrier for others, 37.5% saw gender as a barrier for others, and 28% perceived a barrier for others associated with race. The open-ended responses were numerous in identifying women from developing countries as marginalized.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Fig. 2.

Barriers to participation considering race, gender, and command of English: respondents’ view of their experience and their perceptions of that of others.

Many respondents commented that one of the most important tools for success in the IPCC was a good command of spoken and written English: “I found that in many instances having a good English command and speaking out loud defined a discussion.” English as the dominant language for all working groups of the IPCC (with the exception of some regional chapters), excludes those with imperfect command of English while gives greater voice to native English speakers and those with degrees from English-speaking institutions. One scientist commented “having earned my PhD in an English-speaking country, I have good speaking and writing skills. Without those aspects, my participation would have been a lot more frustrating, as I could observe with other female Latin-American colleagues.”

Some women noted that gender was an issue in holding leadership positions. For example, one respondent noted: “It seemed very difficult for some of the men in my chapter to accept that a woman was leading them. Women were rarely given the word; our suggestions were almost never taken up.” Others noted their multiple intersecting challenges: “in my case, I think it was the factor of: gender + age + command of English” and “being a woman and not particularly tall or loud, I found myself struggling to get attention from ‘senior’ scientists at meetings.” An intersectional lens highlights how individuals often experience discrimination based on social signifiers such as gender, race, class, and sexuality at the same time. These are not discrete categories but intersect; thus, a scientist who is a woman of color and small stature and from a developing country may face multiple levels of discrimination (30, 63).

Although most respondents reported little discrimination based on race, 35% of women of color reported race as a barrier to their full participation. As one African woman expressed: “The only reason that I could have felt not required at all in the team could be that I am an African woman. I have very good command of English, I am as qualified as others, I am confident also—but I was never listened to.”

A third of respondents reported that childcare and family responsibilities were barriers to their full participation in IPCC (Fig. 3). Women noted that if they had children, childcare responsibilities were their biggest obstacle, particularly those who were single parents or with babies. Several confessed that this responsibility might have negatively impacted their performance during the IPCC; as one noted, “I was a single parent during the last IPCC cycle, so traveling was a major obstacle. I managed because I really wanted to do this, but it was a large extra hurdle that caused me to arrive stressed at meetings and sometimes to not have full attention.”

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Fig. 3.

Barriers to participating and influencing the IPCC report.

Almost two-thirds saw a lack of time as a major barrier, and 21% had problems with lack of financial support from their country and/or institution for travel. The considerable time devoted to being a responsible IPCC author was a challenge, especially for less senior scholars: “One issue is the fact that being an IPCC author comes on top of other professional duties (research, teaching, administration, meetings) with extra work, travel to remote places, and with a timeline that is sometimes totally incompatible with the usual rhythm: report versions to be delivered during summer break or at the end of winter break, which are usually to spend with family.” Some women did not receive support from their supervisors and had to take vacation time to participate: “I was under a lot of pressure not to participate” or “There was retribution against me by others where I work because I chose to participate.”

Time needed for the IPCC is a particular problem for early career authors. While IPCC authorship can be helpful in increasing one’s national and international reputation, it may not increase your publication record: “for junior colleagues the barriers included a reduction in their publications given the large amount of time the process takes over the course of the 2-y cycle. The loss of individual productivity could influence their advancement in academe, which does reward publication over service, regardless of its importance.” One woman reported that as a younger author “I was petrified, and often silent in author meetings.”

We note that IPCC authors do not receive any payment for their work. A few women reported that participation resulted in a significant reduction of income, and others reported having to take vacation days to work on the IPCC because of basic incompatibility with their regular work schedules or lack of understanding from their supervisors. This reflects common barriers facing women in the workplace (66). Women do most of the housework, including childcare, and this is consistent around the globe with women working 2 h more per day than men in the United Kingdom, 1.5 h more than men in France, and 4.3 h more than men in Mexico (18). This leaves little time for voluntary duties such as the IPCC on top of family and work responsibilities.

Gender and Climate Science.

Finally, we asked survey participants specifically about the role of gender in being a climate scientist. Forty-one percent of women saw gender as a barrier to their success, and 43% believed that female climate researchers are not well represented in the climate community. The open-ended responses to these questions provide insights into the different types of discrimination based on gender that might include active discrimination, subtle discrimination, and discrimination based on family responsibilities.

Active discrimination occurs when women are not included, silenced, ignored, not supported, or not given the credit that they deserved because they are female. As a respondent noted, “There are enough female scientists that are capable of contributing …[but] males promote other males. It is a fact that there are many male scientists in IPCC that discriminate against female scientists based on the simple fact that they are women.” Another told us “women are still not listened to as much in committees. Many times, a male colleague repeated what I’d just said, and it was then tagged in the future as (his) idea rather than mine.”

Subtler discrimination was reported when women recognized that gender must have been a barrier in their career as scientists but were unsure of how or when it happened. For example: “I suspect that gender has delayed my career, it’s hard to say exactly how, but probably through lack of mentoring, not being ‘seen.’ . . . I now have a full professorship, but I still feel that a male of the same standing might be more likely to be picked for a leadership role than I would.” Another woman wrote “in my view being a female scientist is never neutral. Mostly it is detrimental, people do not take you seriously when you speak. . . . Rarely do I feel just ‘normal,’ only with very close colleagues.” Some attributed their success to good luck because they saw many of their female colleagues’ struggle. One expressed the following: “While I have been lucky in my career opportunities, I see many of my female peers dropping out along the way due to lack of job security and flexibility, which impacts females more than males.”