5

Barriers and Opportunities in NASA Space Missions

To increase diversity in competed space missions, it is important to understand the barriers that hinder the development, preparation, and submissions of successful proposals. Also, how these barriers can have a disproportionate impact on populations that remain underrepresented in the space science workforce (e.g., women of all racial/ethnic identities, racially minoritized scientists of all gender identities, gender and sexual minorities, individuals with disabilities, etc.). Drawing on the research literature on advancing diversity in the scientific workforce and enterprise as well as the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago qualitative research study¹ on the experiences of competed space mission principal investigators (PIs), this chapter outlines the psychosocial and large-scale factors that act as barriers to increasing the diversity among competed space mission leadership. The recommendations outlined in Chapter 7 identify the opportunities to mitigate the barriers outlined in this chapter.

Proposal development, preparation, and submission are complex processes that take place within a broader sociocultural and sociohistorical context. Over time, these contextual factors have shaped the distribution of people and resources across the higher education and scientific industrial landscape on the basis of identity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, disability status). These factors also continue to structure opportunities available to historically underrepresented groups while also shaping the experiences of, perceptions of, and the interactions between various populations within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In this sense, many of the barriers that may limit the diversity of the pool of competed space mission PIs extend far beyond the proposal process itself. Thus, to identify opportunities to increase the diversity of the pool, it is critical for all relevant stakeholders—National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), higher education institutions, the space science industry, and all members of the space science community—to understand and address these barriers.

___________________

¹ In June 2021, the National Academies contracted with NORC at the University of Chicago to design and complete a qualitative study of the experiences of scientists who have submitted space mission proposals to the NASA SMD. Data collection, which took place between August 2021 and September 2021, consisted of 29 individual, semi-structured interviews with scientists who had prepared and submitted at least one space mission to the NASA SMD as a PI from 2010-present. The final report of findings from the NORC study is included in Appendix C of this volume.

ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK

A social ecological model consisting of nested, contextual layers is helpful to understanding the multiple factors that may impact demographic diversity among competed space mission PIs. The ecological model, originally developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1974, 1995) to understand human development, consists of concentric circles of influence and networks and has been applied to describe a broad range of social processes. In the context of this study, we adopt a social ecological framework to describe how factors that operate at the structural, institutional/organizational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels (see Figure 5.1) interact to yield the demographically homogenous pool of leaders of competed space missions that is currently observed. Although this model presents the levels as distinct, it is important to understand that this is a conceptual and analytic distinction. In practice, factors across these levels are intertwined and co-constitute one another (Risman 2004).

With this framework in mind, many critical questions emerge: Who is currently in the pool? How are the education-to-career pathways for distinct groups different? How are experiences within the field/institutions/process disparate? How do these differences limit access to resources? How does identity/background shape experiences within the field? How does identity/background shape access to collaborative networks/integration within science teams? Finally, how do one’s own beliefs and biases affect decisions and behaviors related to team formation, proposal development, and proposal evaluation, and how does identity shape how one thinks about their work, likelihood of success, and tolerance for risk? Each of these questions relates to a potential barrier to diversity among competed space missions PIs. The following discussion of potential barriers draws on the social science and educational research literature on participation barriers for women and minorities in professional endeavors

such as science and engineering, as well as a commissioned qualitative study on the experiences of PIs with the current mission proposal process (see Appendix C).

In the social ecological framework depicted above, there are four nested and mutually reinforcing contextual layers (i.e., structural, institutional/organizational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) that represent the environment in which a potential mission PI is embedded. The structural layer of the framework encompasses the systemic factors that originate from sociohistorical and sociocultural conditions and act to constrain access to power, resources, and opportunity on the basis of identity, resulting in advantages for some groups and disadvantages for others. These factors operate across all societal domains (e.g., education, economic, labor, health), and have implications for who has access to leadership opportunities on competed space missions. These encompass large-scale societal factors like public policy, ideology, lore, culture, history, systems of oppression, and deeply entrenched, widely shared gendered and racialized beliefs about which groups are capable of doing science and deserving of the opportunity to be educated and participate in STEM. Barriers that operate at the structural level shape the demographics of the pool of prospective PIs of competed space missions by constraining the pathways to and through STEM higher education and by shaping career opportunities (see Chapters 2 and 4).

The institutional/organizational layer of the framework includes the professional or academic environment in which a potential mission PI is embedded. Institutional and organizational factors comprise the individual workplace conditions which includes the resources and opportunities available to an individual in that workplace environment, implicit and explicit disciplinary norms, values and institutional culture, as well as institutional and agency practices and policies. These factors may have a disparate impact on prospective competed mission leaders from populations that have been historically excluded from and are underrepresented in the NASA SMD fields, and continue to be minoritized and experience marginalization (e.g., women, racially minoritized populations, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community). Institutional/organizational barriers often interact with structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal factors to result in inequitable experiences for these individuals within their scientific field, the institutions in which they work, and the academic/institutional processes in which they engage. The differences in experiences within the field and within the discipline can also lead to inequities in the resources (e.g., money, staff, information, etc.) to which prospective PIs from historically excluded populations have access (see Chapter 2).

The interpersonal layer of the framework includes relational factors such as interactions (i.e., acts, words, and behaviors) between individuals and groups that can have a differential impact on historically underrepresented groups and erect barriers on the path to becoming a PI of a competed space mission. Identity—both social and personal—shapes relationships between individuals and among groups. Thus, prospective PIs with marginalized or minoritized identities will experience interpersonal interactions within the field differently. Additionally, identity can also shape access to collaborative networks and play a role in the degree to which an individual feels included or integrated within their discipline, department, or science team.

The final layer of the organizing framework comprises the intrapersonal factors that can act as a barrier to diversity in the leadership of competed space missions. Intrapersonal factors include the beliefs, biases, and thought processes that shape decision-making, the judgments we make about others, and how we view ourselves. For example, individual beliefs and biases can inform decisions and behaviors related to team formation, proposal development, and proposal evaluation, as well as those of women-identifying prospective PIs, racially minoritized groups or other historically underrepresented populations. Additionally, due to the interactions between the structural, organizational, and interpersonal factors mentioned above, identity can shape how individuals of different backgrounds think about their work, their likelihood of success, their tolerance for risk as well as how they prioritize specific experiences and goals over the course of their career.

STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO DIVERSITY

As with other STEM fields, women, racially minoritized populations, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ+ community and other groups that have faced systemic marginalization have been historically excluded

from the educational and professional opportunities required to enter careers in the space sciences. Rooted in racism, sexism, and other systems of oppression, this intentional exclusion historically limited access to STEM learning, degrees, and careers to primarily White men. The vestiges of exclusionary policies and practices remain apparent today through the lack of diversity across all STEM disciplines, but particularly in physics, astronomy, and other related subfields (Ivie and White 2020; Mulvey 2021; NSF 2021d). Compounding past practices that limited access to space science careers for minoritized and marginalized groups, barriers along these educational and career pathways remain in place and continue to have a disproportionate impact on historically excluded populations (see Chapter 4). As a result, women of all races, racially minoritized populations, and other marginalized groups remain underrepresented among degree earners in the physical sciences (see Chapter 4) and in the space science workforce (see Chapter 3). This underrepresentation is even more acute among women of color, who experience the intersectional effects of racism and sexism (Cooper 2015; Cole 2021). Given this persistent underrepresentation in the physical sciences, the current pool of prospective PIs is largely homogenous. In this sense, a large structural barrier to increasing diversity among the leadership of competed space missions is the lack of diversity in the educational pathways to space science-related degrees and the resulting lack of diversity within the professional pathways to space science careers.

While the composition of the space science talent pool is a significant barrier to increasing diversity in the leadership of competed space missions, additional structural barriers limit access to opportunities to be involved in or lead competed missions for those minoritized and marginalized individuals who earn a PhD in the space sciences and take on faculty positions. According to the American Institute of Physics (AIP), women comprise a smaller proportion of faculty in PhD-granting physics departments than in departments where the highest degree granted is a bachelor’s or master’s degree (Helba et al. 2019). Because PhD-granting departments are typically present within well-resourced institutions with a high-level of research activity, the underrepresentation of women in these universities suggests that gender-based inequities in access to resource-rich institutional environments with PhD-level graduate students to support faculty research exist.

Previous surveys conducted by the AIP also found that Black and Latinx faculty in physics and astronomy are underrepresented in PhD-granting departments (Ivie et al. 2014). In 2012, the most recent year for which data are publicly available, half of Black physics faculty members worked at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), even though these institutions only comprise 4% of all physics departments in the United States (Ivie et al. 2014). With HBCUs less likely to offer graduate degrees in physics and astronomy than Historically White Institutions (HWIs), the concentration of Black physics faculty in HBCUs creates inequitable access to resources and graduate students to support their research. Indeed, 39% of Black physics faculty are employed at PhD-granting departments, compared to 49% of Latinx physics faculty and 60% of all physics faculty who work in PhD-granting departments (Ivie et al. 2014). Though they are more likely to be in a PhD-granting department than Black faculty, Latinx faculty remain underrepresented in PhD-granting physics departments compared to their White and Asian counterparts (Ivie et al. 2014).

The concentration of racially minoritized and women physics faculty in non-PhD-granting departments and the clustering of Black faculty in HBCUs is a structural barrier to advancing diversity among the leadership of competed space missions because these institutions are under-resourced and possess significantly smaller research infrastructures in the space sciences and other STEM fields compared to larger research universities. For example, in fiscal year (FY) 2020, approximately $5.33 billion in NSF funding and $1.74 billion in NASA funding were awarded to HWIs compared to the $0.0814 billion in NSF funding and $0.0153 billion in NASA funding awarded to HBCUs that same year.² These funding disparities need to be understood in the context of the fact that HBCUs granted nearly 22% of all bachelor’s degrees in natural sciences and engineering earned by Black U.S. citizens and permanent residents in that same year.³ These inter-institutional differences are longstanding and were purposefully engineered (Malcom-Piqueux 2020). The initial inequitable distribution of governmental investment across higher education institutions during the development of the nation’s space science research and development (R&D)

___________________

² See NSF (2021b). Tabulations by committee using NCSES Interactive Table Builder available at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/home.

³ Tabulations by committee using “IPEDS Completions Survey from Department of Education: 2019,” in the NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Interactive Table Builder at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/home.

infrastructure created the current environment. Institutions who are more likely to have diverse STEM faculty (i.e., non-PhD-granting institutions, HBCUs and other Minority Serving Institutions [MSIs]) are also less likely to receive federal support for research programs that are related to NASA SMD fields (e.g., physics, astronomy). For example, in 2008, the most recent year for which these data are available, 85% of physics departments at HBCUs employed at least one Black and/or Latinx faculty member compared to 28% of physics departments at HWIs (see Figure 5.2), yet there are zero R1 HBCUs (Ivie et al. 2010).

The current disparities in R&D funding experienced by HBCUs and other MSIs originate in part from the way the federal government chose to invest in higher education institutions as it sought to expand the nation’s research capacity during the Space Race. Between 1955 and 1965, federal R&D funding increased by 200% (Douglass 2000; Urban 2010), and a relatively small number of research universities received the lion’s share of federal support for R&D in science, engineering, and technology. In 1963, twenty universities received 80% of all federal R&D funds awarded to higher education institutions, which enabled them to expand their research programs and strengthen their STEM research facilities, equipment, and other infrastructure (Douglass 2000). However, institutions that educated racially minoritized populations during this era did not enjoy the benefits of such investments that resulted in major improvements in research infrastructure elsewhere. Given that rate of growth in federal R&D investment during this period has not been matched in subsequent decades, the institutional inequities from this era are still apparent today. Currently, a larger number of higher education institutions receive R&D funding from federal agencies than did during the period of rapid expansion of federally financed research during the Space Race and the Cold War. However, a small number of institutions that benefited from the earliest investments continue to receive a significant proportion of federal R&D funds. In FY2020, for example, Johns Hopkins University (including its Applied Physics Laboratory) received 21.8% of NASA R&D funding awarded to higher education institutions, while the nation’s HBCUs received a combined share of just 0.87% of NASA R&D funding granted to higher education institutions (NSF 2021b). Neither past nor current R&D funding levels reflect the disproportionately large role that these institutions play in educating Black scientists (NSF 2021d) and employing faculty of color (Ivie et al. 2010; McCrary 2021). This historical underinvestment in the space science R&D infrastructure at HBCUs and other MSIs has in effect limited the capacity at these institutions to compete for a NASA space mission. Moreover, given the racialized patterns of where today’s faculty are employed and where degree earners in Science Mission Directorate (SMD)-related fields are educated, historical underinvestment

leads to a disproportionately negative impact on faculty members of color in SMD-related fields and limits access to early-career mission experiences for students of color at MSIs.

Findings from the commissioned qualitative study of scientists who submitted competed mission proposals to NASA underscore the value of early career mission experience, which was often gained through connections to faculty mentors with NASA funding during undergraduate and graduate school training. MSIs and non-PhD-granting institutions that receive less NASA funding than HWIs (NSF 2021c) are at the same time also educating a disproportionately large share of racially minoritized students in physics, astronomy, and other SMD-related fields. These funding disparities likely reduce access to the type of early career mission experiences that PIs identified as critical to their training and preparation to become a PI.

The commissioned qualitative study also revealed the importance of the institutional research infrastructure to a successful competed mission proposal submission. Respondents cited the vitally important role of the site visit during the proposal submission process and expressed the significant amount of preparation and institutional resources and support necessary to plan and execute a successful site visit. Given that women physics faculty and Black and Latinx physics faculty are more likely to be employed at non-PhD-granting institutions, HBCUs, and other MSIs compared to White and Asian male physics faculty, the modest research infrastructures, lower levels of research funding and administrative structures to support STEM research at these institutions,⁴ are barriers that disproportionately impact faculty from historically underrepresented groups as they pursue leadership positions on competed space missions.

Finding: Non-PhD-granting academic institutions, HBCUs, and other MSIs play a disproportionate role in educating physics degree earners and employing physics and astronomy faculty who are women and/or from racially minoritized groups. Due to long-standing disparities in research capacity and infrastructure, these institutions receive less NASA funding than their R1 peers.

Conclusion 5-1: Non-PhD granting academic institutions, HBCUs, and other MSIs experience inequitable access to the mission experiences that are helpful to scientists who go on to submit competed space mission proposals.

Conclusion 5-2: Proposal development, preparation, and submission—including site visits—are resource-intensive processes. Given the concentration of women physics faculty and Black and Latinx physics faculty in less-resourced institutions, resource-intensive processes likely disadvantage prospective PIs from these underrepresented populations.

INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

Disciplinary culture and climate within Earth sciences, planetary sciences, astrophysics, and heliophysics and at PI institutions (academic and non-academic) can act as barriers to greater diversity among the leadership of competed space missions. In this context, culture refers to the implicit and explicit customs, behaviors, norms, and values that are deeply embedded within the discipline or field. The values and norms of STEM disciplinary culture have been explored as contributors to the unwelcoming environments often experienced by women and minoritized populations in these fields (Griffin 2018; Posselt 2020). Climate, which encompasses psychological and behavioral dimensions (Hurtado et al. 1998), refers to how individuals and groups experience their field, institution, or department as well as the quality and extent of interaction between those groups and individuals (Rankin and Reason 2005). Within STEM fields, an exclusionary climate and perceptions that one’s own value and identity are incongruent with STEM disciplinary culture are often experienced by historically excluded, underrepresented, and minoritized groups (Griffin 2018). Culture and climate can affect prospective PI engagement, sense of belonging, persistence, and performance

___________________

⁴ See the Finance Survey Component of NSF (2021c); data available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data.

Tenure policies that incentivize a high volume of publications can also act as an institutional/organizational barrier to diversifying the pool of PIs. Given the demographic makeup of the SMD fields (e.g., a higher proportion of women in the Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) survey were in pre-tenure, tenure-track positions than in tenured positions compared to the proportion of men) and the structure and timeline of the mission proposal development process (typically 2-3 years in length), prospective PIs may be required to de-prioritize other shorter-term projects that would lead to publications. Thus, there is great risk involved in this endeavor because of the significant chance that the mission will not be selected (see Chapter 2), and this risk may be even greater for aspiring PIs at the early career stage where publications are important productivity indicators for reappointment. This disproportionately disadvantages those from minoritized communities.

The commissioned qualitative study also points to potential disparities in how proposals may be reviewed given the lack of a double-blind process. At the proposal stage, there are many factors to consider and the PI’s status and reputation were among those cited by respondents as having implicit prestige bias because of the way in which the reputation of the PI may implicitly influence the review panel. The respondents believe the organizational culture of NASA emphasizes the need for a PI to be well respected by scientists in the field and industry partners, while also being “taken seriously” by those outside of the agency that may interact with the PI (e.g., policy makers, media). Therefore, previous success as a PI or previous collaborations with well-respected scientists may be an invisible criterion not formally adopted as part of the internal review process. This idea that only a select group of individuals are qualified to become PIs may reinforce the status quo maintaining the same group of PIs to dominate the competed space missions. Respondents also believed that the feedback they received on why their proposal was not selected did not seem to reflect some of the perceived hidden criteria regarding PI status and reputation.

The literature points to the complicated nature of determining whether bias is present in proposal review processes (Sato et al. 2021). The effect of such biases on funding decisions are difficult to investigate due to the opacity of many federal agencies’ review processes, including the demographic composition of review panels and access to review panel discussions and deliberations. While there is evidence of racial disparities in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 research awards after controlling for educational background, prior success, and employer characteristics (Ginther et al. 2011) and researchers have identified the decision points in the NIH review process at which biased assessments emerge (Erosheva et al. 2020), it is not understood how these potential biases operate to shape the assessments and judgments of reviewers and review panels resulting in the observed disparate funding outcomes. Previous research highlights the multiple factors including individual and systemic biases, social barriers, and methodological challenges associated with collecting and analyzing bias free data. Additionally, the decision-making process for proposal selection is often ambiguous and difficult to account for all elements considered by reviewers. Though more research is needed to understand how bias manifests during the review process, a widely shared perspective among respondents in the commissioned qualitative study was that bias is a barrier in the current process.

Another institutional and organizational factor is the perceived advantage that NASA center researchers have over those not affiliated with a NASA center. Respondents described the ways in which NASA center scientists may have a better understanding and alignment with the NASA reporting requirements, budget monitoring, and administrative processes. The respondents identified a need for administrative support for proposers’ institutions and noted that there is variability in who is receiving this assistance.

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS

An important mechanism producing differential and long-lasting effects on the careers of potential and current PIs is their treatment as mentees. Respondents in the commissioned qualitative study and PIs describing their experiences during open, information-gathering sessions at committee meetings underscored the importance of having supportive mentors for their ability to access critical experiences with missions. PIs who described having mentors who were supportive and encouraging described enriching training that exposed them to elements of space missions and allowed them to gradually increase the complexity of their responsibilities.

Not all PIs had access to these positive mentor-mentee relationships, and among the respondents, access followed gendered and racial lines. For example, women and racially minoritized respondents were more likely

than White men respondents to report that they received very little support from mentors, and even overt hostility. Negative experiences with mentors included being passed over for opportunities for which they were qualified and feeling “stuck” in toxic mentor-mentee relationships that then affected the climate of the work environments.

This lack of positive mentoring experiences can have cumulative effects: PIs who entered the space mission community after graduate school reported feeling perpetually “behind” peers in terms of grants and other professional accomplishments. Lack of access to collaborative networks can also act as a barrier to diversifying the pool of PIs of competed space missions for women and scientists of color. For example, in a study of graduate students in physics and astronomy, women, on average, rated their doctoral advisors less positively than did men (i.e., were less likely to agree that their advisor encouraged them in their research and career goals, provided adequate input, or was easy to discuss ideas with) (Porter and Ivie 2019). Women graduate students in physics and astronomy were also more likely to reporting having a mentor outside of their advisor during graduate school (Porter 2019). Among women in astronomy, those who reported a lower quality of relationship with their doctoral advisors were more likely to leave the field after graduating (Porter 2019). There is also evidence of lower access to mentors for women and scientists of color after PhD completion and entering a space science career. In a 2020 AAS DPS Climate Study, women were more likely to cite lack of access to mentoring from senior colleagues as a negative influence on their career satisfaction (Porter et al. 2020). In the same study, Black, Latinx, and Asian scientists were more likely to cite a lack of interactions with well-established scientists as an impediment to their careers (Porter et al. 2020). These studies of the space sciences community did not explore differences in the quality of mentoring relationships based on mentor-mentee “identity match” (e.g., race, gender). However, research from other disciplines suggests that while homophily is no guarantee of a successful mentoring relationship, sharing a salient social identity can support the connection that a protégé feels with their mentor (Baker et al. 2014). Given the value of multiple mentors to mentees’ career advancement and growth (NASEM 2019b), limited access to mentoring is a barrier that disproportionately impacts populations that are underrepresented within the space sciences. Considering the current demographic reality within STEM fields broadly and within the space science community more specifically, encouraging the adoption of inclusive mentoring practices by all mentors—regardless of identity—may mitigate the barriers experienced by scientists from underrepresented populations. Examples of inclusive mentoring practices include: listening actively, moving beyond “colorblindness,” intentionally considering how culture-based dynamics like imposter phenomenon can negatively influence mentoring relationships, and reflecting on how biases and prejudices may affect mentoring relationships (NASEM 2019b).

In the context of competed missions, respondents in the commissioned qualitative study revealed the impact that differential access to networks of PIs could have on the potential PIs’ ability to access the necessary resources, personnel, and informal knowledge to prepare a competitive proposal. From the perspective of researchers who aspired to be PIs, but were not integrated through their graduate training or through the sponsorship of a collaborator, the scientific community engaged in competed space missions were viewed as nearly impenetrable. Aspirant PIs not incorporated into these social networks had to go to great lengths to gain entry including cold calling, scoping out “power brokers” at conferences, and otherwise investing a great deal of time and effort just to have access to the social network.

Prior research on network access in STEM has found that women, people of color, and LGBTQ professionals face greater challenges of being seen as credible or garnering respect within scientific networks (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012; Eaton et al. 2019; Cech and Waidzunas 2021). This greater challenge establishing credibility, alongside less access to positive and supportive mentorship, means that marginalized and minoritized population are at a significant disadvantage gaining access to the social networks critical to developing the skills and experience necessary to prepare and lead competed missions. This differential network access can aggravate another form of differential treatment identified in the commissioned qualitative study: a perceived bias by NASA toward experienced PIs over new PIs. While NASA has indeed used previous PI experience as an explicit criterion in the past,⁵ the respondents perceived that this process has continued. This has implications for new PIs generally, but is particularly pertinent for the lack of diversity among successful PIs. Because younger cohorts of scientists are

___________________

⁵ See, for example, the SMEX 2007 AO available at https://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/CommAnnouncementFAQ.html.

more demographically diverse than older generations (NSF 2021d), any bias toward more advanced-career PIs would produce a less diverse set of awardees than the pool of applicants.

Research evidence has also shown that homophily⁶ is common in research collaborations, with academic institutions attended and genealogy (individuals with whom one trained/studied/worked) shaping scientists’ primary collaborative units (Freeman and Huang 2014). Additionally, teams are often constructed based on areas of expertise, leading to the construction of professional connections and networks based on shared scientific interests. Given the racialized and gendered nature of academic and career pathways, gaining access to professional networks may be a larger barrier to gaining mission experience for women and scientists of color. This is particularly true if prospective PIs rely on their existing networks when forming collaborations for subsequent funded projects instead of looking for new team members (see Chapter 2).

To gain access to collaborative networks, well-established scientists (who are disproportionately White and male) must make judgments, assessments, and decisions about early career scientists’ abilities, qualifications, competence, and suitability to join their team. These assessments are subject to bias, defined as attitudes, behaviors, and actions that are prejudiced in factor of or against one person or group compared to another. Biases may be held by an individual, group or institution, and can lead to unfair advantages or disadvantages. Biases can be explicit (i.e., conscious), or implicit (i.e., unconscious). Implicit bias occurs automatically and unintentionally, but affects an individual or group’s judgments, behaviors, and decisions (Olson and Fazio 2003). A great deal of evidence illustrates how, across a range of contexts, biases can lead to inequitable assessments based on widely shared stereotypes and implicit associations that are highly racialized, gendered, ableist, etc. (Goldin and Rouse 2000; Fiske et al. 2002; Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Eaton et al. 2019). Given deeply entrenched social hierarchies and systems of power and privilege, implicit biases can have a disproportionately negative effect on women, racially minoritized individuals and other marginalized groups, the very populations that have been historically excluded from and remain underrepresented in STEM fields, including the space sciences.

The commissioned qualitative study also revealed patterns of biased treatment in teams within the context of competed space mission teams. As researchers were amassing experience on mission teams as Co-Investigators, some reported biased treatment and hostile environments by respective PIs. Respondents reported experiences where PIs were domineering, tended to micromanage, and fostered “old boys clubs” that implicitly or explicitly excluded women and other minoritized groups. Even once they held PI positions, women and racially/ethnically minoritized scientists shared a range of experiences such as being the targets of sexist jokes, being labeled as “difficult” to work with even when performing standard PI job functions, and having their basic competence questioned. Additionally, respondents reported that when women and racial/ethnic minority PIs sought to establish their leadership, they were more often seen as “arrogant,” while White men with the same characteristics would be viewed as “confident.”

Finding: Prospective PIs perceive multiple forms of bias throughout the proposal development, preparation, and submission processes, and report having experienced discrimination even after assuming the leadership position for a successful competed mission.

Finding: On average, members of the space science workforce from historically excluded and underrepresented groups (i.e., women, scientists of color) neither enjoy the same access to collaborative networks nor the benefits of mentoring relationships as individuals without marginalized identities.

Conclusion 5-3: Mentoring and access to collaborative networks that include experienced PIs are formative in preparing those who submit competed space mission proposals. However, women and racially minoritized space scientists report less access to mentors and a lower quality of relationship with their doctoral advisors

___________________

⁶ Homophily refers to people seeking out persons similar to themselves. For example, a researcher may seek out another researcher with similar social identities to themselves like a White cis-gendered male researcher seeking another White cis-gendered male researcher to be part of their research team or as a suitable mentee.

and senior colleagues. Inequitable access to high-quality mentoring relationships is a barrier to increasing diversity in the leadership of competed space missions.

INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS

Intrapersonal factors can act as barriers with a disparate impact on scientists from historically excluded and underrepresented groups. For example, developing a sense of belonging (i.e., do I feel that I am a fully accepted and engaged member of my scientific community) may be more difficult for individuals from minoritized and marginalized groups, especially if they are one of a few in that environment (Rainey et al. 2018; Fisher et al. 2019; Xu and Lastrapes 2021). Prior research has robustly connected a sense of belonging with a host of outcomes, including intentions to stay in one’s scientific field long term (Lewis et al. 2017).

Development of a sense of belonging is hindered by the unequal access to supportive and opportunity-rich mentoring that was described above. In the commissioned qualitative study, respondents who experienced positive mentorship experiences reported that these were foundational to their early sense of belonging in the field. Effective mentors introduced their mentees to “powerful players” in their network and helped them decipher the mission proposal process and understand proposal timelines. This early exposure to missions gave early-career scientists time to develop confidence and a sense of identity with space missions that bolstered their ability to endure the uncertain and challenging process of submitting a proposal as PI.

Additionally, imposter phenomenon, or the psychological experience of professional or intellectual fraudulence (Clance 1985; Sakulku 2011; Chakraverty 2019), due to the widely shared assumptions about who is capable of being a PI. The language used to communicate the expectations of what it takes to be a PI (e.g., being hypercompetitive) may fuel feelings of intellectual and professional fraudulence, as women and scientists of color are acutely aware of the deeply rooted stereotypes about their respective groups. Even when equally qualified and experienced, lack of confidence can lead minoritized researchers to avoid applying for competitive funding and awards and even to consider leaving their STEM field entirely (Smith et al. 2013; Tao and Gloria 2018; Abrica et al. 2020). Imposter phenomenon is closely tied to a broader concept of “self-efficacy,” or one’s judgment about their ability to execute the necessary tasks to attain a goal. Due to structural and interpersonal processes like those described above, past research has shown that minoritized scientists often develop lower science-related self-efficacy, which can, in turn, be tied to differentials in persistence and confidence (Larose et al. 2006; AAUW 2008; Rittmayer and Beier 2008; Majer 2009).

Study respondents indicated several specific parts of the proposal process that undermined their confidence. For instance, minoritized researchers were more likely than White men to encounter challenges to their competence as they attempted to access networks. Even when serving as PI, women and people of color were more likely to report having their expertise questioned by their team members. This undermining of confidence is something that White men PIs are less likely to have to deal with and is an important mechanism in the decision to seek out mission leadership at all. For some respondents, their experiences in science mission teams produced the strongest and clearest experiences of discrimination or bias of their entire careers.

These direct and indirect refutations of minoritized scientists’ competence is aggravated by general cultural lore among the space science mission community that very few have what it takes to serve as PI (Shapin 2008; Sheltzer et al. 2014; Leslie et al. 2015; Posselt 2020). This is a gatekeeping belief that not only may prevent community members from recognizing mission leadership potential in women and people of color, but also hinders women and scientists of color from seeing themselves as capable of such leadership.

Among those women and people of color who do pursue mission leadership, experiences with tokenism may also have play a chilling effect on their desire to take on the PI role in future proposals. Tokenism is the act of making only symbolic efforts to increase representation of persons from minoritized groups, particularly by recruiting one or two people from those groups to give the appearance of equality within an organization or work group (Kanter 1977a; Roth 2004; Holgersson and Romani 2020). Tokenism is especially common in spaces where women and people of color have faced particularly entrenched historical exclusion (McIlwee and Robinson 1992; Blair-Loy and Cech 2022).

The commissioned qualitative study revealed several instances where minoritized scientists believed they were only elevated to PI role because of the “diversity” they brought to the team, not principally because their team members respected their leadership. For instance, one PI reported that they were “used” by the mission team as a token to make the other members of the mission team appear to care about diversification of leadership, but later learned that these other team members knew even before submission that their proposal was considered a long-shot and was not ultimately funded.

A final intrapersonal barrier is the tradeoffs that potential PIs may see in proposal preparation and submission. The overwhelming consensus of career narratives described in presentations to the committee and the results from the commissioned qualitative study is that proposal preparation is intensely demanding and difficult, if not impossible, to combine with non-work responsibilities like childcare. The majority reported that proposal preparation was “extremely taxing” on their personal lives. Many explicitly noted that they were only able to devote the time necessary for proposal preparation because they did not have children or they either had supportive partners who took on the additional burdens of childcare and housework or they were able to hire out many tasks (e.g., personal shopper). Because women professionals are more likely than their male peers to be shouldered with primary responsibilities for childcare in their families (Ecklund et al. 2012; Cech and Blair-Loy 2019), and professionals of color are more likely than White professionals to have eldercare and other family care responsibilities (Pinquart and Sörensen 2005; FCA 2012), they are less likely to have the privilege of downshifting these personal responsibilities throughout the award process. In this sense, the proposal process, as currently designed, can be a “heavier lift” for prospective PIs with minoritized identities.

Finding: Prospective PIs from historically excluded populations reported that interpersonal interactions with others in their field undermined their sense of belonging and fueled experiences of imposter phenomenon, making the path to leadership of competed space missions more difficult. Similarly, incongruence between the messages about “what it takes” to be a PI and prospective PI’s self-perceptions erected barriers along the pathway to competed space mission leadership positions.

Conclusion 5-4: Experiences of bias, discrimination, and exclusionary interpersonal interactions hinder the creation of an inclusive working environment and act as a barrier to diversity among the leadership of competed space missions.

The chapter attended to barriers within different levels of an environment; the factors at each level should be understood as often mutually reinforcing and co-constitutive. Factors at one level may presuppose and help reinforce factors at another. It is important to note that the barriers identified and discussed in this chapter are not exhaustive, and further study is needed to substantiate these preliminary findings and understand the full suite of barriers that influence the resulting makeup of the prospective leadership pool for competed missions. Such steps are crucial for identifying those points in the proposal development, preparation, and submission process (see Chapter 2), the work environment, and educational and career pathways (see Chapter 4), where intervention may be needed. Best practices and additional recommendations for mitigating these barriers are offered in Chapters 6 and Chapter 7.