National Academies Press: OpenBook

Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (2022)

Chapter: Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions

« Previous: Appendix B: Glossary
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

C

Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions

Prepared for

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Committee on Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions
500 Fifth Street. NW
Washington, DC 20001

Prepared by

Mithuna Srinivasan, PhD
Heather Sawyer, PhD
Ann Kearns Davoren, PhD
Julie Kubelka, MSEd
Elena Navarro, BA
NORC at the University of Chicago
1155 East 60th Street, 2nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60637

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

Driven by concern over a lack of diversity in the pool of applicants for competed space missions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (hereafter, NASA) commissioned the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (hereafter, the National Academies) to conduct a consensus study aimed at understanding the factors that impede or facilitate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the proposed leadership for competed space missions supported by the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) at NASA.

The consensus study is being conducted by the Committee on Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (hereafter, the Committee) at the National Academies. The Committee’s key

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

charge is to recommend actions to increase DEIA in the leadership of space mission proposals submitted to the NASA SMD competed space mission programs. For this, the Committee is engaging with a wide range of experts in the relevant social science and space science communities to achieve the following objectives:

  • Map the current space mission proposal system
  • Identify elements of the system that may present barriers or bottlenecks to potential proposers, yielding a less diverse pool of proposal leadership teams
  • In the step above, identify humanistic elements of the system that may present impediments to applicants, limiting the diversity of the competitive pool
  • Use existing NASA proposer data and other sources to analyze differences between the pool of current and past SMD proposers and the community of researchers in NASA-relevant fields, the larger U.S. science community, and the national population
  • In developing recommendations, consider best practices from other agencies funding large, principal investigator (PI)-led, multi-institutional projects to find common bottlenecks and to identify innovative methods for overcoming such barriers
  • Recommend practical and effective actions that NASA SMD and its partners can execute to help proposers overcome barriers to diversity and inclusion to ensure a diverse pool of proposal leadership teams
  • Recommend ranges of activities and choices that individuals may make during their career to enhance the likelihood of individual success as a future leader of a competed space mission

Research Questions

To support the work of the Committee in addressing the above objectives, in June 2021 the National Academies contracted with NORC at the University of Chicago (hereafter, NORC) to organize and conduct virtual, in-depth interviews with individuals who have prepared and submitted at least one proposal to the NASA SMD’s competed space missions program as the PI from 2010 to the present. The purpose of the interviews was to gather information about applicants’ experiences with the NASA SMD mission proposal development and submission processes, as well as perceived barriers and opportunities to ensuring a diverse, competitive pool of proposed leaders. As such, insights gleaned from the interviews will help the Committee address the first three objectives listed above. Additionally, the interviews will inform practical recommendations that the Committee can make for NASA SMD and its partners to reduce barriers and bottlenecks in the current mission proposal process in order to yield a more diverse pool of proposal leadership teams.

Against this backdrop, the current study addresses the following research questions:

  • What educational and earlier career experiences led competed space mission PIs to consider submitting to NASA?
  • How did competed space mission PIs learn about funding opportunities, how were they supported/mentored (or not) through the lead-up to and actual proposal submission process, and what factors helped or hindered their decision to apply?
  • What were the experiences of competed space mission PIs from the proposal submission stage forward (e.g., during site visits, evaluations, or moving forward after receiving denials)?

Report Purpose and Structure

This report presents findings from the qualitative data collection with competed space mission PIs. The findings are organized by the three research questions listed above and aim to provide an understanding of individuals’ educational and career experiences that shaped their decision to pursue competitive funding from NASA, the availability of key facilitators that helped individuals realize their full research potential and successfully make grant submissions to NASA, challenges that they faced along the way to proposal submission and after, and their overall assessment of the proposal submission process and outcomes at NASA.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

The rest of the report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses our methodology, including details on respondent outreach, the sampling and recruitment of interview participants, data collection and analysis, and study limitations. Chapter 3 describes the key findings from the data collection, organized by the three research questions. Chapter 4 concludes with a high-level recapitulation of the study’s methodology and key findings.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DATA COLLECTION

As previously noted, the key aim of the study was to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews with scientists who, between 2010 and present, had prepared and submitted at least one space mission proposal to the NASA SMD as a PI. The study received approval from the National Academies’ Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Eligible Respondent Identification

Scientists with experience preparing and submitting at least one space mission proposal as the PI in response to an announcement of opportunity (AO) from the NASA SMD from 2010 to the present were considered eligible for study participation.

In order to identify individuals eligible to participate in the study, the NORC team, National Academies project staff, and members of the Committee jointly conducted email outreach to various space science community groups and organizations with a request for them to disseminate within their networks information about the study and a web-based Qualtrics Study Eligibility Survey. In order to more directly target the NASA PI proposer pool for competed missions, the same community recruitment email and link to the Study Eligibility Survey also was sent to the NASA SMD with a request for them to circulate it to their proposer listserv/database. Appendix A presents the full list of organizations and groups that were contacted by the NORC team, National Academies project staff, and members of the Committee; Appendix B contains the community outreach emails; and Appendix C presents the Study Eligibility Survey.

Interested individuals self-selected into the study by voluntarily completing the Study Eligibility Survey, indicating on that survey if they would consent to be contacted for an interview and accordingly providing their contact information as part of the survey (see Exhibit 1). Respondents also received a notification before exiting the survey that they will be contacted within a few weeks for an interview by the NORC team if deemed eligible. The survey also noted that, if the respondent did not receive this follow-up from NORC by a specified deadline, they could assume that they were not selected. Survey respondents also were asked to share the survey link with others who they thought might be interested in participating in the study.

Selection and Recruitment of Interview Participants

The Study Eligibility Survey was administered from August 3-25, 2021. During this period, 320 participants completed the survey. Of them, 64 were considered eligible for participation in the study. The NORC team selected a subset of 40 eligible individuals to invite for interviews, with the aim of maximizing diversity across background characteristics and proposal submission history. All 40 individuals received a personal email outreach from the NORC team inviting them for a one-hour virtual interview at a date and time convenient for the respondent. Appendix D contains a copy of the individual outreach email. NORC sent one follow-up reminder by email if the individual did not respond within three days. If still no response was received, the individual was dropped from consideration.

The selection of the 40 individuals for interview outreach was done in a staggered fashion across two rounds:1

___________________

1 The wording of survey question 1 changed over the period of the survey administration, which is why interviewee selection was done in two rounds. In the version of the survey that was used during Round 1, question 1 appeared as: Have you ever served as principal investigator (PI) on a proposal for a competed space mission submitted to NASA SMD from 2010 to the present? This question did not distinguish between those who had been PIs on instrument proposals versus full space mission proposals. Per the National Academies’ guidance, the NORC team subsequently modified this question for Round 2 to appear as: Have you ever served as principal investigator (PI) on a proposal for a competed space mission submitted to NASA SMD from 2010 to the present (excluding instrument PIs)?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Exhibit 1: Study Eligibility Survey
Image
  • Round 1 outreach was based on responses to the survey that were received August 3-17, 2021, which resulted in 12 eligible respondents. No sampling was done in this round; instead, the NORC team selected all 12 for interview outreach. Interviews were scheduled with 11 of the 12 invitees during the Round 1 outreach.
  • Round 2 outreach was based on responses to the survey that were received August 18-25, 2021, which resulted in 52 eligible respondents. To reach a targeted pool of 40 individuals for interview outreach, NORC purposively sampled 29 eligible individuals from Round 2 due to only 11 of the 12 Round 1 respondents participating. The following section presents details of the purposive sampling that was done for Round 2. Interviews were scheduled with 18 of the 29 invitees during the Round 2 outreach.

Characteristics of Interviewee Pool

As mentioned above, in total there were 64 eligible survey respondents. The majority were White (67%), while 17% identified as Other/Multiracial, 11% as Asian/Asian-American, and 5% as African-American/Black. With respect to ethnicity, 6% identified as being Hispanic/Latinx. The majority of eligible survey respondents also identified as men (73%), were professionally affiliated with an academic institution (56%) and were from the Western United States (65%). With regard to their proposal submission history, for the majority (80%) their most recent bid to NASA was unsuccessful, and the mission size of their most recent bid was very small, at under $125 million (58%). Mid-career professionals (with 11-25 years of experience) made up 44% of the eligible respondents, early career professionals (0-10 years of experience) comprised 20% of eligible survey respondents, and late career (more than 25 years of experience) made up 25% of eligible survey respondents. Finally, respondents were asked to what space mission division they have applied for funding throughout their careers. Planetary Science comprised the largest proportion at 25%, and Earth Science was selected by 23% of eligible survey respondents.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

Nearly 20% of eligible survey respondents had applied to Astrophysics, 9% to Heliophysics, and an additional 23% had applied to multiple divisions.

As previously mentioned, all 12 eligible individuals from Round 1 were invited for an interview, and 11 of those 12 participated. With 52 eligible participants in Round 2, the NORC team implemented a three-step purposive sampling strategy to select 29 individuals to invite for interviews for this round. The purposive sampling was done in such a way as to include an adequate number of respondents from historically marginalized groups in STEM fields. Therefore, the first step sampled by race and included 17 non-White eligible respondents; the second step sampled by gender identity and included eight additional respondents who identified as women; and the third step sampled by space mission division and included four individuals who at some point in their career submitted a proposal to the Heliophysics division.

The result was an invited interview pool of 40 individuals that maximized diversity among key characteristics. Among those invited for an interview:

  • 40% reported they were non-White or multiracial
  • 40% self-identified as women
  • An almost even split was achieved between successful and unsuccessful most recent bids
  • 28% had applied to the Planetary Science division, and 25% to the Earth Science division
  • 70% reported an academic affiliation2

Of the 40 invited for an interview, discussions were scheduled with 29 respondents who accepted the invitation. In the final interviewee pool, the majority ended up being White (69%), while 52% of participants identified as women. Most (72%) had an academic institution professional affiliation, and most were from the Western United States (59%). Most participants were either early- (24%) or mid-career (48%) and had been unsuccessful in getting their most recent bid as PI to NASA funded (66%). Nearly 60% of interview participants submitted very small bids as part of their most recent submissions to NASA. Planetary Science was the most frequently occurring space mission division (38% selected this), and an additional 21% had applied to Earth Science.

Data Collection

Instrument development. The NORC team engaged in formative research to gain insights needed for the development of an interview guide that would meet the objectives of this study. We reviewed the following background material provided by the National Academies:

  • The Explore Solar System and Beyond: NASA Announcement of Opportunity Science Team Demographics presentation given by Heidi Jensen and Lorenzo Pappas, June 2021
  • The consensus study report Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine from the National Academies, 2018
  • The PI-Led Mission Proposal Process presentation given by Dr. Thomas Wagner from the Planetary Science Division at NASA, February 2021
  • The Goddard Space Flight Center Proposal Development presentation given by Deborah Amato from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, February 2021
  • The Proposal Process: My Perspective from Planetary Discovery and New Frontiers Mission Proposals presentation given by Cathy Olkin from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), February 2021
  • The Writing Successful Proposals: Observations From NASA presentation given by Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen from the NASA SMD
  • The Being a First Time PI presentation given by Dr. Erika Hamden, February 2021.

___________________

2 Of eligible respondents, 56% reported an academic institution affiliation. Our invited interview pool was more heavily skewed toward academics because of prioritizing other areas for sample, including race/ethnicity, gender identity, and space mission division.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
  • The SMD Summary Demographic Data presentation given by Louis Barbier, Caroline Wilson, and Ankita Kc from the Office of the Chief Scientist at NASA, June 2021.

After reviewing the above materials, the NORC team prepared a semi-structured interview guide to conduct interviews with selected individuals. Exhibit 2 presents the sections and main topics covered in the interview guide. A full copy of the interview guide is available in Appendix E.

Interview process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the NORC team virtually using the Zoom platform from August 25-September 22, 2021. Each interview lasted up to an hour and was audio-recorded with the respondent’s consent. Each discussion was facilitated by two NORC project staff, with one serving as the interviewer and the other as the notetaker. Interviewers and notetakers used a written protocol that included clear and concise instructions as well as suggested probes to help guide conversations with participants.

Prior to starting the interview, the interviewer verbally reviewed consent protocols with each participant to ensure they understood the purpose, risks, and benefits of their participation. The notetaker documented in the interview notes whether verbal consent was granted. The participant was also told that, following the interview, they could receive an electronic copy of the consent form if they would like one, and the notetaker documented in the interview notes whether the participant opted to receive a follow-up email with the consent form. The consent to record was also documented in the interview notes.

Data Analysis

Each interview was transcribed manually by a member of the NORC team. Analysis of early interview transcripts was done using a modified grounded theory approach, whereby emerging themes were used to build explanatory models of relationships between items. When possible, the team implemented “in vivo” coding, which used respondent’s own words and phrases as themes, such as PIs needing to be able to “speak multiple languages” across proposal teams. This enabled the team to generate probes iteratively from interview to interview, to incorporate respondent feedback on topics.

Throughout the data collection period, the NORC team met often to discuss emerging findings and kept a running list of themes, which was expanded upon as new topics emerged until saturation occurred. Preliminary themes and findings were shared with National Academies project staff and the Committee to determine their relevance and potential inclusion in the analysis. After all the interviews concluded, the team performed deductive coding and analysis on the entirety of interview findings, using the preliminary themes that had been identified previously as well as any new themes that emerged. A flat coding structure was used to assign equal relevance to all themes. Each team member in charge of the analysis was assigned a subset of interviews to review to ensure the comprehensiveness of themes and perform coding verification. After coding and analysis were complete, overlapping thematic topics were consolidated and organized by the three research questions.

Exhibit 2: Interview Guide Layout

Section Topics Covered
Participant Career Background and Experiences
  • Early exposure to NASA competed missions
  • Types of incentives or supports received from employers
  • Mentoring-related experiences
Lead-Up Process to Proposal Submission
  • Process of forming mission teams
  • Barriers and facilitators to proposal development and submission
Post-Submission Process and Outcomes
  • Post-submission processes
  • Challenges faced post submission
  • Experiences of being a PI
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

Limitations of the Research

This study provides a snapshot of the experiences of proposed PIs for competed space missions in their career background, proposal submission process, and post-submission process. Some limitations of this study include the following:

  • Although our sample of 29 interviewees allowed us to capture rich, qualitative data with some diversity along race/ethnicity, gender identity, and space mission division, as is a constraint with all qualitative research, the generalizability of findings is limited.
  • Self-reported data from interviews can suffer from issues such as recall error.
  • Subgroup analyses that stratified findings by background characteristics such as race/ethnicity, career stage, subfield, and proposal submission history were not always feasible, given the risk posed to the confidentiality of participants. Therefore, experiences of PIs in subgroups may vary.
  • A total of 12 respondents across Round 1 and Round 2 did not respond to our request for an interview. Therefore, findings may suffer from some degree of non-response bias. That is, the opinions of those who did not respond may be different than those who were interviewed and whose responses were included in this study.
  • This study focused exclusively on individuals who have submitted at least one full mission proposal bid as PI to NASA in the last 10 years. Therefore, the study team did not systematically investigate the experiences of co-Investigators (Co-Is), Deputy PIs, post-docs, graduate students, and others who may face significant barriers while on, or trying to join, proposal teams. We were also unable to systematically examine “barriers to entry” to proposal submission. Thus, study findings should be interpreted keeping these exclusion criteria in mind, and only reflect the experiences and perceptions expressed by select individuals who submitted at least one full mission proposal to NASA as a PI over the course of their career.

FINDINGS

While all respondents had earned PhDs in their respective fields, many commented that they did not learn all the skills needed to be a successful PI through their undergraduate and graduate school training. Similarly, respondents working at academic institutions noted that higher education is “woefully inadequate” in preparing young scientists to be PIs. Furthermore, the types of skills and experiences to hone that would be beneficial for career growth are not known by many students.

Despite these limitations, conversations with most respondents about their educational experiences revealed that they felt higher education was a critical time when they gained some important skills that gave them a competitive edge over many of their peers. For example, they found mentors, started building their networks, and gained access to opportunities that provided them with the mission experience that helped them later become PIs.

Respondents gave several suggestions as to how time spent in higher education could better prepare students for PIship. One suggestion was to better align the length of time spent in school with mission frequencies. It was perceived that, due to the infrequency of large mission opportunities, many students do not have the chance to join a mission and gain mission experience. Respondents suggested that increasing the number and frequency of

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

smaller missions would be one way to ensure that more students gain this vital experience. It was also noted that increasing the number of smaller missions would allow young postgraduates to get the necessary experience as a PI or Co-I on a smaller project, which increases their qualifications to lead a larger project. Other suggestions included requiring courses on proposal writing, budgeting, public speaking, conflict resolution, and project management to bolster the skills needed for PIship.

Becoming a PI is in part predicated on serving in positions of increasing responsibility, so early career mission experience was perceived as being important. Many respondents worked under advisors in undergraduate and graduate school who were working on, or had connections to those working on, NASA space missions. As students, these respondents engaged in activities such as mission data collection, participating in meetings, and serving on review panels. These experiences enabled them to learn firsthand about the mission process and potential areas of scientific exploration and helped build their careers.

Respondents who entered their scientific fields at later ages or who experienced delays in early career development reported feeling perpetually “behind” their peers in terms of publications, grants, and other professional accomplishments. A lack of formalized career steps or career development ladders (as early as the undergraduate level) was perceived to increase barriers, as the steps needed to advance a career were not always well understood. Respondents also felt there is a need for a greater number of small mission opportunities to enable early career professionals to gain experience writing proposals, managing teams, and developing innovative technology.

Many respondents reported having strong support from a mentor, and some were even told explicitly they would make a good PI early in their careers. They felt that these mentorship experiences were foundational to their sense of belonging in the field. Mentors introduced respondents to others in their network, connected them with mission opportunities, and helped them understand the mission proposal process. Some respondents perceived that the respect and reputation of their mentor was transferred to them as their career progressed, which helped them gain credibility and name recognition. Respondents noted that the culture of the scientific community needs to shift in such a way so that experienced PIs are encouraged to mentor a wider swath of students and early career scientists. One suggestion to address this issue was to create a NASA database to help pair potential mentors and mentees across organizations and networks.

Insofar as networks are important sources of information sharing, some respondents perceived that NASA training opportunities are not always widely publicized and are more accessible to those who are well connected. The scientific community working on space missions was characterized as small and seemingly impenetrable for an early career scientist outside in-crowd networks. Respondents expressed that mission teams are often comprised of people who already know or have worked with each other. It was therefore perceived that students and early career scientists are often brought onto mission teams because they are (or were) the graduate students of a PI or their PI’s close friend or colleague. Respondents felt this creates networks of “in crowds” that are difficult to gain access to without facilitation by someone in the network.

Women and minorities were more likely to report difficulty breaking into networks as a result of negative mentorship experiences. For example, one woman had an advisor who was known to have intimate relationships with his students, and the respondent noted that she was often teased or ridiculed by her peers under the presumption she may be involved with him as well. A person identifying as a racial/ethnic minority had an advisor who not only provided no support through their training but created roadblocks to their progress. Those who did not have supportive advisors or were not in programs that had involvement with space missions were often left on their own to figure out proposal development by trial and error. For respondents who experienced negative relationships,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

some found support outside formal advisor relationships from others in their field, while others found mentorship from experienced scientists at their place of work.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

PIs described the time spent in preparing proposals as extremely taxing on their personal and professional lives. Some noted they were “not great parents” during these periods. Others said that they could only devote the time required to prepare a proposal because they did not have children, had very supportive partners who did a disproportionate amount of work around the home, or could afford to hire help (such as a personal shopper). Respondents who were late in their careers had a general sense that proposals have become longer and more involved, teams have grown larger, and that the overall demands involved with proposal submissions have increased over the past few decades.

It was felt that, for early career PIs, the time and effort needed to develop proposals can prevent them from advancing their scientific findings, presenting at conferences, and publishing manuscripts, which can ultimately hinder their professional development (such as securing tenure). Some respondents felt that they had to risk accepting roles on teams or at institutions with known cultural or interpersonal challenges just so they could get their foot in the door.

Many respondents felt that the dedication and qualifications of a proposed PI played an important role in proposal outcomes. Some felt a PI needs to have a combination of experience that is “virtually impossible to find” in a single person, which greatly limits the pool of proposed leadership to a small group. Prior mission experience, an understanding of the administrative and management requirements, and relevant scientific background were all perceived as skills needed to serve as a PI. Due to the complex role of a PI and significant size of funding awards, respondents felt that PIs need to be “taken seriously” and seen as “trustworthy” not only by NASA, but also by industry partners and the general public. Many respondents perceived that, in selecting proposals, NASA can be swayed by other factors such as a PI’s reputation, proof of past success as a PI or Co-I, publication records, accolades and appointments, and the prestige of PhD-granting institutions. Because the proposal review process is not double-blinded, respondents felt that having resumes with respected early career experiences and working with influential, established scientists in the field meant that NASA would be more likely to view a PI’s submitted proposal favorably. These perceptions are important to acknowledge because they influence how proposal teams form.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

Respondents cited networking as a primary means of proposal team formation, but the processes of partnership and pathways to PIship differed among respondents. Factors such as institutional affiliation and personal reputation were perceived to impact how teams were assembled as they shaped differential access to information, timelines, and processes. Some acknowledged having PIship bestowed upon them by more senior colleagues, who acted as gatekeepers within networks. Others spent years on mission teams, committees, review panels, and other working groups before obtaining the skills or reputation needed to be viewed as a qualified PI.

For example, respondents working at academic institutions or centers felt that they often had to “sell” their position as PI to their own institution, along with industry and management partners. Some felt they had to work very hard to be taken seriously and grow their networks, implementing strategies such as cold-calling potential partners. Several people reported using conferences as places to learn who the key power brokers were in industry and approach potential partners. Others reported difficulties partnering with mission management organizations without specific institutional affiliation or a known reputation. Some felt they had to compete against other mission teams to secure partnerships with management and industry partners.

Respondents working at NASA centers were more likely to feel that the selection of a PI was an internally competitive process because mission concepts had institutional support and the processes of partnership were formalized. Some respondents perceived a lack of clarity in training and proposal requirements to partner with industry, creating a climate of “hidden timelines” and frustration in building mission teams. Because teams form anywhere from six months to several years before an AO is released, informal networks are heavily relied on for information sharing.

Respondents felt that, from mission conception to proposal submission, the burden of responsibility ultimately falls on the PI. Even if a proposal makes it through the first phase of review, some respondents mentioned that NASA often asks for budget cuts that force PIs to make difficult decisions about how to proceed. PIs perceived that if they deny budget cuts, then they risk losing funding in the next round. If the PI agrees but the work cannot be completed within that new budget, it creates a range of challenges for the PI to navigate with project managers, scientists, and engineers. This can also lead to situations where PIs have to renegotiate with industry partners to prevent them from backing out.

Given the vast financial scale of space missions, many perceived NASA as being more “conservative” with risk taking regarding PI selection, proposal budgets, and industry partners. Some felt that newer, “unproven” PIs and more “innovative” science proposals may be less likely to be selected due to NASA perhaps not wanting to risk wasting taxpayer money on potentially failed projects. Respondents also felt that PIs who have prior working relationships with NASA program managers and certain industry partners seem to be more likely to win proposals. The perceived bias toward experienced PIs creates challenges for newer PIs or PIs who want to further explore emerging science areas.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

POST-SUBMISSION OUTCOMES AND MOVING FORWARD

Site visits were perceived to have grown increasingly demanding in resources, time, and money. Site visits were described in various ways, such as the “talk of your life,” a “dog and pony show,” and “like a thesis defense times 10 crossed with a Hollywood production.” Participants felt that the requirements to execute a successful site visit have grown increasingly elaborate over the years. Respondents reported their teams spent weeks or months preparing for site visits, including things such as media training, dress rehearsals, cross-country travel, building exhibits, and creating project websites. These preparations put strains on the proposed PI’s career responsibilities and other personal commitments (such as raising children). Overall, these events were described as resource-intensive, pressure-filled, and requiring great planning and theatrics. Participants noted that, while the costs of missions are well documented, an immense amount of capital and labor goes into simply competing for a bid.

Although some respondents said receiving a rejection was the most important thing that happened to their careers because they gained valuable experience and exposure, others felt that losing a bid was akin to a “death in the family” and emotionally and professionally devastating. One respondent reported feeling used by a mission team, who they later came to feel put them in the PI role as a “token” to appease NASA’s push for diversity. They later learned that key team members felt they possessed “inside information” that winning the bid was a long-shot due to another proposal being favored by NASA even before it was submitted. Another respondent who felt used as a diversity token questioned if they would ever submit another proposal after the immense demands of the preparation process and perceived unfairness of the proposal outcome. Several people reported the perception that there is a lack of clarity in which proposals get funded and which get rejected, and several felt that favoritism came into play.

A perception that was repeated by multiple respondents was that a PI needs to be able to “speak multiple languages” to convey information effectively across diverse actors, including engineers, scientists, management, leadership at NASA, industry partners, and the general public. Respondents felt that each of these groups has their own culture, lingo, and style of communication. Effective leadership was perceived as requiring a depth and breadth of educational, career, and life experience. Many agreed that a PI needs to foster a healthy team dynamic, although respondents reported having witnessed PIs with a range of working styles—some great and others terrible. Some of these negative traits mentioned included being domineering, not consulting the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

team’s opinions, micromanaging, fostering “old boys club” dynamics, or being completely aloof while the work falls on the team.

Respondents reported a range of experiences with bias and/or discrimination in PIship and beyond. Some respondents felt that they experienced subtle or normalized forms of discrimination throughout their careers, while others felt like they experienced more punctuated and obvious acts against them. For example, a woman who received career mentorship from a more senior woman said that she was given the advice that, to avoid gender discrimination throughout her career, she should be “the best in the room” in any given situation. The reasoning was that if she was more qualified and competent than the men around her, there would be lessened opportunities for discrimination to occur, including less doubt from team members as to her qualifications to serve as PI. The need to work harder than most others around her became a normalized part of her life.

In another instance, a woman respondent felt that being passed over for a position was due to what she characterized as normalized gender bias at her place of work, despite her distinguished career accomplishments. Another woman perceived being the target of sexist jokes by colleagues while attempting to perform managerial tasks as a PI. Multiple women reported being labelled difficult to work with while performing normal job functions as PIs, and subsequently became targets of gossip as they gained reputations as being “hard to work with.”

A respondent identifying as a racial/ethnic minority reported feeling “invisible” at work as they were passed over for opportunities (such as serving on committees) for which they were uniquely qualified. In contrast, another respondent identifying as a racial/ethnic minority reported feeling heightened visibility at work when a white coworker reported them to a more senior colleague as having an abrasive personality and being non-collegial, formally recommending this person be denied a promotion.

While many respondents had suspicions of bias at points throughout their careers, several felt they experienced outright discrimination when they reached the level of PI. These more pointed experiences that were mentioned included receiving feedback on mission proposals that felt particularly personal, such as questioning if the PI could “handle” the job or doubting the PI’s basic understanding of scientific concepts. In another instance, a respondent reported that while serving as PI she was frequently spoken over by older men on her mission team and had to resort to yelling on at least one occasion before being listened to. Women PIs reported that sometimes men refused to follow their directions for completing parts of the proposal and/or project, ignoring instructions and completing the tasks the way they saw fit.

Respondents had various reasons for not reporting such incidents. Some were hesitant to label certain incidents as intentional or deliberate acts of bias or discrimination. For example, one participant who identified as an ethnic/racial minority said they did not want to seem “ungrateful” for the opportunities they had been given by “complaining” about perceived racial bias in their career. Others reported that the pain, frustration, and difficulty of addressing these experiences are compounded by a perceived lack of ombud or protected reporting mechanism at NASA. One respondent’s perception was that, because NASA carries such prestige, there is no governing body higher than the organization through which PIs could make complaints about discrimination or unfair treatment. Another respondent suggested the creation of a co-equal oversight body within NASA that had regulatory power to address grievances. Many respondents reported fearing retribution if they brought to light their experiences.

CONCLUSION

NORC conducted research to understand the factors that impede or facilitate DEIA in the proposed leadership for competed space missions. The goal of this work was to support the Committee’s efforts toward making

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×

recommendations to the NASA SMD about ways to overcome barriers to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and ensure a diverse pool of proposed leadership. For this, NORC conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals who had experience preparing and submitting proposals as PIs to the NASA SMD competed space missions program from 2010 to the present.

This study is an important first step in understanding barriers to diversity and inclusion in competed space missions funded by the NASA SMD. However, as indicated previously in the Limitations section, this study was unable to accommodate the full range of barriers individuals face, since it focuses only on the role of a PI. Several individuals who were not eligible for the study emailed the NORC team to express a concern that the study was too narrowly focused on PIs. They felt that this eligibility criterion excluded many others who face significant “barriers to entry” to proposal submission, and that it was equally important to hear from individuals who have been unable to make even a single submission. They were also concerned that a focus only on PIs would miss important factors shaping DEIA in competed space missions that impact individuals at other career stages. In addition to this feedback received from non-participants, several study participants, mostly comprised of women and minorities, also expressed concern about the limited scope of the study given their experiences in the field. Therefore, while feedback received by NORC from the broader space sciences community as well as from study participants showed enthusiastic support for this work, there is a need for additional studies on this topic such as the following: (1) those that seek to understand barriers to proposal submission faced by individuals who never reach the level of PI, (2) those that seek to understand barriers faced by others in leadership roles such as Deputy PI or Co-I, and (3) those that seek to understand barriers faced by proposers of instrument missions.

Despite these limitations, this study found a range of perceived barriers and facilitators that shape the proposed leadership for competed space missions. For example, respondents reported that higher education did not confer all the skills that they needed to become a successful PI, but that it served as a critical time to gain soft skills and mission experience and to build networks needed for career growth. Making connections and building networks with other scientists on missions was seen as critical to gaining opportunities later on. In addition, mentorship experiences were foundational to respondents’ sense of belonging in the field, but they noted that this currently depended on the chance of meeting a mentor who was motivated to help the mentee. As such, respondents suggested that the culture of the scientific community needs to shift to encourage experienced PIs to mentor a wider swath of students and early career scientists.

Respondents also reported that preparing a proposal was extremely taxing and required strong personal, financial, and institutional supports. This included support from family members, support from their academic institutions (particularly for those who were pre-tenure), and financial support for their time while they prepared the proposal. Factors such as institutional affiliation and personal reputation impacted how teams were assembled as they shaped differential access to information, timelines, and processes. For example, respondents felt that those who work at NASA centers have a better understanding of NASA reporting requirements, budget monitoring, and other administrative processes. Others felt that industry partners are not always explicit in how partnerships form.

Finally, respondents explained that it is common for a proposal to be rejected during several rounds before being funded, due to the limited amount of funding for missions and a perception that mission concepts need to reach maturity. Given the vast financial scale of space missions, many characterized NASA as being more “conservative” with risk taking regarding PI selection, proposal budgets, and industry partners. Sometimes after a rejection respondents received thorough feedback from reviewers which they viewed as helpful in improving their proposal for the next round. Other times, respondents reported that the feedback was cursory and unhelpful, and they felt unsure if the reasons stated for rejection actually reflected behind-the-scenes decision-making. Because respondents spend much time and effort preparing and submitting a proposal, these efforts could result in career set-backs, financial risks, and personal sacrifices.

Intersecting these barriers and facilitators were other factors such as race/ethnicity and gender identity. Women and people who identified as belonging to ethnic/racial minorities reported less positive mentorship and early career experiences, cited increased experiences with subtle and overt acts of discrimination or bias throughout their careers, and shared the perception that proposal outcomes and experiences with PIship were negatively shaped by their gender, race, and/or ethnicity.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Qualitative Study of the Factors That Impede or Facilitate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Proposed Leadership for Competed Space Missions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26385.
×
Page 154
Next: Appendix D: Committee and Staff Bios »
Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $35.00 Buy Ebook | $28.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Fostering diverse and inclusive teams that are highly skilled, innovative, and productive is critical for maintaining U.S. leadership in space exploration. In recent years, NASA has taken steps to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in their workforce by releasing its equity action plan, emphasizing how diverse and inclusive teams help maximize scientific returns, and requiring DEIA plans as part of announcements of opportunities. To further its efforts to advance DEIA, the Agency requested the National Academies undertake a study to evaluate ways NASA can address the lack of diversity in space mission leadership.

Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions outlines near and long-term actions NASA can take to make opportunities for leadership and involvement in competed space missions more accessible, inclusive, and equitable. Report recommendations range from changes to the mission proposal process to investments in STEM education and career pathways. This report makes 15 recommendations for advancing DEIA within NASA's Science Mission Directorate divisions that support competed space mission programs. However, many of the report's recommendations could also be applied broadly to research at NASA and other federal agencies and institutions, leading to a more diverse research workforce.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!