4

Ensuring a Healthy People Enterprise

A healthy, space research, people enterprise welcomes new ideas and new entrants as it executes world class science. The membership is representative of the broader community. The existing members are supported as they prepare themselves for new challenges. The data to assess the community as it transitions include demographics, attributes that enable change, and information on the organizational cultural health. This chapter covers the attributes and required data of today’s community, more discussion on future attributes, and highlights of programs that have demonstrated positive change.

TODAY’S WORKFORCE

The space, Earth, and biological and physical sciences research community includes civil servants at NASA, employees at federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and researchers, scientists, engineers, and educators working elsewhere, such as the following:

• Universities;
• Planetariums;
• Observatories;
• Other federal laboratories—for example, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO), etc.;
• Non-profit organizations—for example, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Space Studies Institute (SSI), Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Universities Space Research Association (USRA), etc.;
• Museums; and
• Industry.

The people who make up the profession are a fundamental component of the research enterprise, without whom the ambitious facilities, instruments, and experiments, as well as the promised transformative discoveries, would be unfulfilled.

CROSSING BOUNDARIES: INFLUENCE OF THE HEALTH OF THE SMD WORKFORCE ON THE OVERALL COMMUNITY

Conceptually, the civil service workforce can be distinguished from the external community that receives funding from NASA. Yet, the entire Science Mission Directorate (SMD) research enterprise is interconnected between the civil service and external partners that can matter greatly for the metrics collected and outcomes produced. Decisions about awards depend heavily on the actions taken by NASA staff. In addition, staffing and related problems within NASA can affect progress within the external community. An illustration of the latter appears in guidelines for NASA SMD’s annual call for basic and applied research, Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences, ROSES 2022. According to the guidelines, NASA seeks to act on new awards shortly after the selection process has ended, and any potential issues can ripple into the community.

In essence, internal NASA matters—the features of its workforce and its culture—often intersect with the operations of the external community. The interdependence of the sectors complicates the task of identifying, monitoring, and deploying data to ensure the health and vitality of the NASA enterprise.

NURTURING AND SUSTAINING THE EXISTING TALENT BASE

The SMD vision of leading a globally interconnected program of scientific discovery that encourages innovation, positively impacts lives, and is a source of inspiration¹ is powered by its broad and diverse community. Characterization of this community, its driving forces, and the trajectory of change, can highlight needed action to support SMD’s missions with increased pedagogical innovation and external pressures such as from the COVID-19 pandemic and improving inclusiveness. A National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded report by the American Geosciences Institute, Vision and Change in the Geosciences: The Future of Undergraduate Geoscience Education, while solidly Earth science focused, highlights the importance of evolving instructor (teachers/faculty) content knowledge, instructional practices, and student experiential learning opportunities in pre-college, undergraduate, and graduate education (Mosher and Keane 2021). Demonstrating the health and vitality of the SMD community to NASA, Congress, the media, and the general public encourages support of its mission. This community represents a worldwide benchmark for scientific excellence.

Beyond demographics and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) challenges, the committee discussed the issues of career stage frameworks, competed versus directed missions, and other key forces, like the larger social changes that may impact the research community. These dynamics are complicated and may vary among the space, Earth, biological and physical sciences disciplines. For example, career-stage structure is not something that the agency has much ability to affect, considering that most members of the space, Earth and biological and physical sciences research communities primarily work for non-NASA institutions such as universities which have a direct impact on the careers of their employees via their hiring and retirement policies, among others.

SMD received internal informal feedback that the civil servant science workforce was unclear about career paths, leadership development, and roles and responsibilities. In the fall of 2020 SMD formed a study group to address the concerns within the directorate and the broader science community. The purpose of the study team was to improve conditions and formalize career paths, training, and developmental strategies. The phase 1 Report Status was released in February 2021.² Results focused on four main topics: current state of the NASA science workforce, career paths, leadership development, and project scientist role and authority. The SMD study group identified several gaps in communication of clear career paths, defining scientist roles and responsibilities at multiple levels, and training.

___________________

¹NASA, 2020, Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Science Excellence. Washington, DC: NASA Science Mission Directorate, https://science.nasa.gov/files/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/2020-2024_Science.pdf.

²NASA, 2021, “Agency Science Workforce Study Phase I Report,” Washington, DC: Science Workforce Study Team, https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/FINAL%20Agency%20Science%20Workforce%20Study%2003.02.pdf.

The Agency Science Workforce Study recommends adopting consistent career track nomenclature, developing a web-based career path tool that details each science career track, including a summary of the major roles and responsibilities, ideal experiences and/or competencies, recommended training for that position, and transition possibilities to other positions. In addition, it recommends agency-led orientation for newly hired scientists, career opportunities workshops for mid-career scientists, a rotational program for scientists to experience leadership roles that are time-limited, a comprehensive program for science leadership development led by the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) in partnership with the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), and using the NASA Chief Scientist’s Science Council or the SMD Science Management Council to regularly share promising workforce practices.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT: HEALTH BEYOND DEMOGRAPHICS

Beyond demographic data, understanding the opportunities for growth are important to assess the health and vitality of a research community. An inclusive working culture and an awareness of possible career paths are important to retain valuable employees (Chamberlain 2017; Johnson 2019). In addition to retaining employees, an inclusive working culture is also important for innovation. In an international study of 759 organizations from 17 of the largest economies and most populous countries in the world, researchers found that the most important factor driving innovation is the internal culture of the company (Yu 2007). The challenge of assessing culture within the NASA research community is compounded by the geographically diverse locations of various NASA facilities. However, through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), NASA has consistently obtained an overall perspective of the NASA employee culture for the past two decades, both in aggregate and by NASA center (OPM 2020). The survey collects personal demographics, work demographics, career and workplace satisfaction, employee support and agency alignment. The results are used as the bulk of the data for the “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings,” developed by the Partnership for Public Service (2022) where NASA consistently ranks as the best place to work among large government agencies, with consistently improving Global Satisfaction OPM FEVS indices over the last five years. However, the rigor of NASA’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity (ODEO) in using these data are not apparent.

Additionally, it is vital to look at unique, but important retention factors that can arise based on external or one-time factors. OPM’s recent culture survey assessing the impacts of the pandemic on NASA and other government employees is one example. Another key example is the need to include dual career couples when assessing attrition and retention and the impact of children on one’s career.

In the Global Gender Gap in Science project, researchers assessed gender differences in discrimination among scientists. They found that women were 1.6 times more likely than men to say that their career influenced their relationship decisions (Guillopé and Roy 2020). Women were 3.3 times more likely to report a slower rate of promotion after children than men. Similarly, men were 3.0 times more likely to report no change in their career after having children. These differences are statistically significant and persist after accounting for age, discipline, geographic region, and level of development.

A longitudinal study of astronomy graduate students examined the two-body problem, where a couple is looking for two jobs in the same geographic region. Women were more likely to report two-body problems than men. The two-body problem was found to affect attrition from the field of astronomy (Ivie et al. 2016). To date, all studies on the two-body problem have examined people working in academia; it is not clear what the impact of this problem is on attrition from science fields overall (McNeil and Sher 1998). While not explicitly part of

professional development, scientists in dual-career couples do have outside pressures which can lead them to leave the field. A program which attempts to alleviate these pressures should improve retention.³

ACTIONS: ENCOURAGING REPRESENTATION

This study recognizes that while diversity can be a driver of innovation, the science enterprise can be at its most innovative only when it finds the means to maximize and fully utilize the broadest range of human talent (Hewlett et al. 2013). As summarized in the National Research Council publication Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science, the inclusion of individuals with diverse knowledge, perspectives, and research methods will only lead to the promised innovation and scientific breakthroughs when the issues of communication, and integration across the complexities of multiple domains can be resolved. “Research on work groups and teams provides some support for this assumption, suggesting that including individuals with diverse knowledge, expertise, and experience can increase group creativity and effectiveness but only if group members draw on each other’s diverse expertise” (NRC 2015). Therefore it is not only critical to introduce appropriate diversity but establish mechanisms to encourage inclusion and effective contributions.

Various strategies have been deployed to achieve workplace diversity. There is evidence, however, of sharp differences in the effectiveness of implemented programs. However, while there are some limitations, numerous tactics to improve diversity have been effective. For example, programs that encourage positive engagements rather than controlling techniques have been more successful. Diversity training programs, for example, are not necessarily equal. The literature has identified that required diversity training programs have not been shown to reduce bias or promote workforce diversity (Dobbin and Kalev 2016) while voluntary training has been shown to have a positive impact when carefully managed (Kulik et al. 2007). In contrast, mentoring programs, special recruitment efforts, and training for management seemingly have positive consequences (Dobbin and Kalev 2016). If NASA is to establish greater diversity in its own ranks—and this outcome in the wider research community—then SMD might profit from analyses on programs that work and the explanations for their effectiveness. Prioritized practices

___________________

³ An example of such a program is https://www.provost.umich.edu/programs/dual_career.

demonstrated by data in the literature are mentoring, developing diverse, inclusive, respectful environments, visible career pathing, and diversity outreach.

MENTORING

While white men tend to find mentors on their own due to the prevalence of people who look like them throughout the science research communities, women and minorities more often need help through formal programs to help connect them with experienced scientists and other professionals willing to serve as mentors for them. One reason, as the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business dean David Thomas discovered in his research on mentoring, is that white male executives do not feel comfortable reaching out informally to young women and minority men. Yet, they are eager to mentor assigned protégés, and women and minorities are often first to sign up for mentors (Dobbin and Kalev 2016). While these observations were focused on the complexities of mentoring in business environments, mentoring in academia and science is equally problematic, particularly for women and minorities. Research by Milkman and colleagues point to differential treatment of women and minorities in a field experiment in which 6,548 tenure-track professors at 259 top U.S. universities in 109 different PhD-granting disciplines were contacted by fictional, identical students for possible mentoring (Milkman et al. 2015). Although these were fictional students, the bias demonstrated by the pool of actual mentors was real. In another study focused on bias in the sciences, a random double-blind study by Moss-Racusin et al. (2012), found that science faculty at research intensive universities exhibited a bias against female students, offering mentoring, lab managerial positions, and higher salaries to an equal male applicant.

The challenges of successful mentoring are amplified by differences between the mentor and protégé (Thomas 2001). The large body of work on mentoring indicate a number of significant conclusions:

• Mentorship is positively linked to mentee scientific impact (Ma et al. 2020). Protégés who have future prizewinning mentors are strongly and reliably predicted to be successful. More specifically, successful mentors appear to pass on tacit knowledge—described as rare skills for conducting and communicating novel scientific findings—and this tends to be transferred between people through face-to-face interactions and hands-on learning.
• Concepts from and aligned with the theories of the tripartite integration model of social influence, social capital theory, and social cognitive career theory have been used in many of the studies cited within this chapter. These, and other theories, are especially relevant to mentors being able to understand and support students’ social identities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
• Numerous studies have shown that effective mentorship for students from underrepresented groups enhances recruitment into and retention in research-related career pathways (NASEM 2019b).
• One study found that negative racial experiences in the first year of college tend to negatively affect the otherwise positive relationship between developing a science identity and persisting in STEM (Chang et al. 2011).
• By contributing to the socialization and integration of students into scholarship and academe as a community, effective mentorship plays a critical role in developing a science identity (Byars-Winston et al. 2015; Eby and Dolan 2015; Estrada et al. 2018; Freeman 1999; Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly 1999; Gasiewski et al. 2012; McGee and Keller 2007; Robnett et al. 2018; Thiry and Laursen 2011).
• Culturally responsive mentorship, whereby mentors show curiosity and concern for students’ cultural backgrounds and their non-STEM social identities, may be one way mentors can validate their students’ multiple identities (NASEM 2019b).
• Informal mentorship received along pathways in organizations can confer significant benefits (Eby et al. 2008; Ragins and Cotton 1999; Underhill 2006). For instance, student-faculty mentoring is considered essential for learning beyond the classroom (Jacobi 1991; Pascarella 1980) and is especially critical for graduate education (Clark et al. 2000). Faculty mentors can play multiple roles, such as shaping a student’s

professional identity and his or her understanding of potential career paths (Austin 2002). Women and minorities in particular benefit from constructive mentoring relationships (Thomas and Higgins 1996), especially when the mentor and mentee have an effective strategy for dealing with cross-race differences (Thomas 1993).

CREATING DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, AND RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENTS

SMD is to be commended for seeking novel methods to increase diversity in peer teams. SMD is strongly committed to promoting a culture that actively encourages diversity and inclusion and removes barriers to participation. One important way of achieving this objective is to ensure that the review of proposals is performed in an equitable and fair manner. To this end and motivated by a successful study conducted for the Hubble Space Telescope, SMD is evaluating proposals submitted to numerous ROSES program elements approaches using dual anonymous peer review (DAPR). Under this system, not only are proposers not told the identity their reviewers, but the reviewers are also not told the identity of the proposers until after they have evaluated the scientific merit of all of the anonymized proposals.

The results of SMD’s pilot implementation of dual anonymous peer review in ROSES 2020 is consistent with improvements, both in terms of the overall quality of the review process, as well as in the demographics of awardees. For instance, in the ADAP program, prior to dual anonymous review, women constituted 26 percent of the applicant pool, but only finished in the top two places in the panels’ rankings 16 percent of the time. Following the switch to dual anonymous review, women constituted 31 percent of the pool and finished in the top two places 32 percent of the time (Strolger and Natarajan 2019). Furthermore, the success rate of early-career investigators even eclipsed that of more seasoned investigators, further enriching the talent pool. It is possible that the two factors are linked, given the demographics of the early career pool versus that of more experienced researchers.

SMD can also identify universities and research institutes that may not be actively engaged with SMD work but have the underlying fundamentals to contribute to a given mission. Implementation of such engagements can vary from requesting proposals for solicitations to contracts or postdoc appointments being funded for those organizations. Through constructive engagement with new partners, a broader population is supported with an improved sense of self-efficacy—the individual’s belief in their confidence to manage their own motivation, behavior in face of adversity, and social environment (Bandura 1977) through success. Self-efficacy has been identified as key for long-term success for students of all backgrounds into a science career in the Society of Women in Engineering—Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (SWE-AWE) and the National Academy of Engineering Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (NAE CASEE) programs (Rittmayer 2008). As individuals in STEM with higher self-efficacy consistently set more challenging and creative goals and sustain greater commitment to reaching those goals, this trait improves the individual’s performance (Rittmayer 2008). As organizations are collections of individuals, thus supporting the development of self-efficacy in the individuals can raise the effectiveness and contributions of whole organizations.

For reviews of evidence on diversity programs writ large, the work of Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev provides substantial information. This report studied a variety of companies including mid-size and Fortune 500 and found that implementing traditional diversity programs which included mandatory diversity training, job testing, and grievance systems increased bias rather than decreasing it. Although there are studies on effective programs, few appear to have probed experiences within the space, Earth, and biological and physical sciences.

In recent months, SMD has been proactive in seeking information from the community on DEIA:

• Request for Information on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities in NASA Programs, Contracts and Grants Process.⁴ This request for information requests input on NASA scope, including programs, procurements, grants, regulations, and policies to support evaluation and modification to remove systemic challenges facing people from underserved communities.
• National Academies’ study from the Committee on Increasing Diversity and Inclusion in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (NASEM 2022). The goal of the study is to recommend actions to increase DEIA in the leadership of space mission proposals submitted to SMD competed space mission programs by mapping the current space mission proposal system, identifying barriers or bottlenecks, using proposer data to identify gaps, and recommending practical actions. The study, which was being drafted when this report entered review, will likely provide actionable recommendations to continue the trajectory of developing nontraditional space and Earth science leaders.
• Awards of $18 million for Research at MSIs.⁵ Four new opportunities from the agency’s Minority University Research and Education Project⁶ (MUREP) will enable minority institutions to increase their capabilities while working on significant challenges.

— The Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry (OCEAN) program awarded 10 MSIs more than $6.6 million, enabling these institutions to take an active role in studying climate change and its effects.

— The MUREP Space Technology Artemis Research (M-STAR) program awarded nearly $3.5 million in cooperative agreements to seven institutions for research on missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

— The MUREP Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (INCLUDES) awarded six institutions nearly $7.2 million in MUREP INCLUDES cooperative agreements to determine methods that are most effective at bringing diverse students into engineering research, including assessments of existing successful programs.

— The MUREP-Small Business Technology Transfer Research (M-STTR) awarded more than $540,000 in planning grants to 10 institutions for 11 projects to reduce barriers and pave the way for MSIs and small businesses to compete in STMD’s annual Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Research (SBIR/STTR) solicitation.

___________________

⁴NASA, 2021, “Request for Information on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities in NASA Programs, Contracts, and Grants, Process,” Federal Register 86(113):31735-31738, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/15/2021-12668/request-for-information-on-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-in-nasa.

⁵NASA, 2021, “NASA Awards $18 Million for Research at Minority Serving Institutions,” NASA Goddard, Release 21-109, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-18-million-for-research-at-minority-serving-institutions.

⁶NASA, 2022, “NASA STEM Engagement,” https://www.nasa.gov/stem/murep/home/index.html.

⁷ MSIs produce about 20 percent of underrepresented minorities STEM degrees. See NASEM (2019a).

A FOCUS ON THE BENEFITS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION

Collaborations—or teams—are the hallmarks of research in contemporary society (NRC 2015). The term team science (Bennett and Gadlin 2012; NRC 2015) has been applied to such collaborations, covering research conducted by small aggregations and larger ones. There is much evidence of scientific breakthroughs occurring through teams. At the same time, collaborations can introduce challenges, such as increasing the time required for communication and coordination of work. Understanding those interactions, the science of team science, is critical. Although the findings from team science warrant attention by NASA, certain conditions constraining their usefulness deserve notice. First, much of the prior research has focused on small teams—comprised of 10 or fewer members. Second, team “effectiveness” can depend on the complexity of the task, and whether the given team must intersect with other groupings.

The reality is that much NASA science research would benefit from being interdisciplinary (NRC 1990). However, the current system is very disciplinary. Universities are structured by discipline. NSF is structured by directorate, which is discipline-driven. Journals are also set up by discipline, though they can adapt more easily. Professional societies are set up by discipline, and the disciplines do not necessarily align with current realities. The way the current system is set up, it can be hard to “succeed” in a truly interdisciplinary way. Even the space science decadal surveys are largely set by discipline, although Earth science has sought to be more interdisciplinary. However, much research does not necessarily fall into one and only one of the decadal surveys. In addition, many women and scholars from minoritized groups are drawn to interdisciplinary spaces, increasing the difficulty of determining their success (Fiore 2008; Rhoten and Pfirman 2006). The various ways multiple disciplines can engage, whether through cross-disciplinary research (researchers from multiple disciplines), multi-disciplinary research (complementary contributions of multiple disciplines) or interdisciplinary research (where the overarching goal is the systematic integration of ideas) is worth consideration for the benefit of overall science. These areas of opportunity could be captured by the previously mentioned metric (see Chapter 3) which captures novelty of ideas. Interdisciplinarity could also be included in assessing team science and goals by engaging social and behavioral scientists.

An area where SMD has emphasized an interdisciplinary approach originated from the 2016 report Achieving Science with CubeSats: Thinking Inside the Box (NASEM 2016) that concluded that CubeSats have proven their ability to produce high value science. This prompted SMD to form the Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat Studies Team and solicit concept studies. SMD developed a directorate-wide approach to:

• Identify high-priority science objectives in each discipline that could be addressed with CubeSats/SmallSats;
• Manage programs with appropriate costs and risks;
• Establish a multi-discipline approach and collaboration that helps science teams learn from experiences and grow capability, while avoiding unnecessary duplication; and
• Leverage and partner with a growing commercial sector to collaboratively drive instrument and sensor innovation.

Team makeup is benefited by emphasizing key elements that drive discovery and novel ideas, with processes that include examining and possibly accepting risk. Anecdotal information from conversations among committee members and younger, less experienced engineers reveals that some view NASA as occasionally unreceptive to “out of the box” thinking and novel ideas, causing some to leave government service for the proverbial “new space” companies such as SpaceX, Intuitive Machines, Blue Origin, and others where they believe novel ideas and risk leadership are much more readily received. However, the SMD community has spearheaded a number of high-risk, high-payoff endeavors, like the Mars Ingenuity technology demonstration where high risk, high payoff low maturity technologies were selected, and the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which demonstrates new acquisition models and unique partnering. These high visibility unprecedented initiatives are a valuable recruiting tool.⁸

___________________

⁸ NASA, 2018, “Commercial Lunar Payload Services: Attachment A—Statement of Work,” final draft, https://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/2019APSMEX/MO/pdf_files/CLPS%20SOW.pdf.

Key programs developed by SMD include the PI Launchpad and Mentoring365 programs focused on the space and Earth sciences community. NASA agency-wide initiatives, like the Bridge Program, designed to boost diversity, equity, inclusion, and access within the NASA workforce and U.S. science and engineering community, and programs like the agency’s MUREP can provide benefits to SMD as well.

In addition to general discussions of team effectiveness, Mesmer-Magnus and associates have reported on space exploration and team research (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2016). The study discusses inherent complexities about teamwork that not only apply to space exploration teams but more generally to teams on Earth. They expanded on the significant impacts that team dynamics play on individual’s performance and the attention that is needed both in space and on Earth to assure success.

DIVERSITY OUTREACH

Achieving uniform recognition and acceptance of equity and inclusion can be achieved through enterprise-wide investments in effective pre-degree and post-degree professional development. Building a cadre of talent that has been adequately exposed to the opportunities within the SMD community is the quickest way to influence the current and future workforce for what constitutes an effective research community. Such positive strategies will require a clear vision at the agency level, but also one of expectation projected to the managing organizations (including departments and universities) that execute the science.

The complexities of space science, and in research overall, demand an evolving workforce paradigm. The changing demographics of the U.S. workforce, a mandate for diverse perspectives, and acknowledgement of the long-cycle development of a capable research workforce, from STEM K-12 students through education, hiring, and retaining, the space science workforce, emphasize the need for long cycle, longitudinal career strategies (Toosi 2016). Long cycle strategies address the “workforce of the future,” the scientists required to produce science in the next 10 years and beyond. Associated STEM challenges, particularly in many underrepresented groups, seem to be significant. In studies conducted by Deloitte LLP in conjunction with the Manufacturing Institute, survey data of more than 1,000 manufacturing executives identified repeated shortages of qualified workers. Key contributors were identified as baby boomer retirements, and limited interest in key disciplines (Giffi et al. 2018). Based on the projections reported by Giffi et al., the shortage of skilled workers is likely to reach 2 million over the next decade if there is no further intervention (Sithole et al. 2017). Although these data are not specifically targeted to reflect anticipated gaps in the Earth, space, and biological and physical sciences workforce, the underlying drivers are relevant.

Recent impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in equipment-intensive scientific fields, are expected to have additional impacts on research (Myers et al. 2020). The struggle for talent development and retention remains a concern for Earth, space, and biological and physical sciences. Recognition of the importance of growing and developing people, this most precious resource and the central cog of the science-generating machine, is driving strategic recommendations from the broadest inclusive perspective.

The case for increasing underrepresented populations in STEM jobs, as a vital contributor to the nation was made in Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. As the nation’s demographic landscape shifts, with growing populations of racial and ethnic populations, sustaining our capacity to innovate and conduct research will require a strategy to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in science (NAS et al. 2011).

SPACE, EARTH, AND BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Although SMD does not directly control the STEM pathways leading to careers in its research community, the science, discovery, and future promise of its missions continue to inspire new entrants. Each SMD project, program office, and NASA center engages K-12 and beyond through shared discovery, mission relevance, and unique engagement on science.⁹ However, an integrated strategy of engagement building strategic partnerships and linkages between formal and informal STEM education providers relies in many cases on public interest. Although data are collected on outreach for the many projects in SMD using its four outreach project goals to include not only education of students but the public,¹⁰ strategic goals for students are not clear.

The National Academies’ report NASA’s Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities (NASEM 2020b) offered recommendations to SMD on strategies for broadening participation in their programs by using evaluation measures that go beyond counting numbers of individuals who represent specific groups. In order to do this, the report recommended the SMD Science Activation (SciAct) Program must identify ways that the portfolio as a whole could draw on and implement evidence-based strategies for broadening participation¹¹ and using a portfolio-level evaluation to strengthen program evaluation to achieve its overarching program goals.¹² The Science Activation program networks science experts with STEM learners in conjunction with NASA STEM Engagement programs to increase the overall coherence of SMD’s education efforts.

___________________

⁹NASA, 2022, “STEM Engagement at NASA,” https://www.nasa.gov/stem/about.html.

¹⁰ American Astronomical Society, 2019, “Performance Metrics for NASA’s SMD EPO Programs,” https://aas.org/advocacy/how-aasadvocates/performance-metrics-for-nasas-smd-epo-programs; NASA, “Welcome,” NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Activation, smdepo.org.

¹¹ Recommendation 5 in NASEM (2020b).

¹² Recommendation 7a in NASEM (2020b).

The terms pathways and gateways have been used to characterize the processes of identification, self-awareness, self-volition, challenges, opportunities versus those of institutional admission, acceptance, hiring, promotion, etc. The entry points into valued organizations or communities are characterized as “gateways”; whereas, the fluid processes that influence or shape are characterized as pathways (Chugh and Brief 2008). It is generally supported that educational programs and training opportunities present effective pathways and gateways to the needed community of graduate students, scientists, and engineers who will be prepared to contribute to the space, Earth, and biological and physical sciences research.

Science is a progressive activity and yesterday’s technical challenge is today’s capability and tomorrow’s routine operation. This implies that the workforce also be ambitious, innovative, and adaptive, and capable of learning new skills and moving into developing fields. This has always been the case but, given the likely rapid expansion in Earth observing and space studies, the needs that can be anticipated from decadal surveys and congressional directives should inform current hiring and be communicated to colleges and universities who are educating the workforce of tomorrow.

The larger question of improving the inflow of students and postdocs, among the best and the brightest of young people, including those from abroad, so that it is well matched to the opportunities within and beyond NASA is of central importance but beyond the purview of this committee. The enormity of this challenge is being addressed on many other fronts. A discussion of promising practices in EPO that have the potential to influence this effort, while not comprehensive, is included in Chapter 7.

ENGAGING SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS IN STRATEGICALLY SHAPING THE PEOPLE ENTERPRISE

Research has shown it is insufficient to just “have diversity.” Diversity and inclusion are equally important in the workplace. The words are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. Diversity means “differences”—religion, race, age, sexual orientation, gender, country of origin, and culture—the things that make us unique. The definition of inclusion is the act of using all of these individual characteristics to create a beneficial and meaningful whole. Inclusion embraces the fact that everyone is different and that we all have something distinctive to bring to the table. At its most basic level, diversity can be measured, while inclusion, putting diversity to work, is more difficult to quantify. The ultimate goal of an inclusion journey is belonging, or the sense of fitting in or feeling valued. As discussed by Carr et al. (2019), belonging is a basic social need, that generally forms the basis for significant retention strategies. “Even the most effective recruiting strategy for diversity won’t lead to long-term change if new talent isn’t supported to succeed” (Carr et al. 2019). There is general agreement that belonging is a fundamental human need that almost all people seek to satisfy (Baumeister and Leary 1995), but less agreement on metrics, strategies, and approaches (Allen et al. 2021). It seems the fundamental nature of a welcoming environment is an element of its culture.

According to Schein, the culture of a group appears in a pattern of shared assumptions. Those shared assumptions evolve as the group works to adapt to external conditions and achieve internal integration. The basic assumptions/practices are taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relationship to the external and internal circumstances (Schein 2010).

This study recognizes that diversity is a driver of innovation, and that the science enterprise can only be at its most innovative when it maximizes and fully utilizes the broadest range of human talent (Hewlett et al. 2013). However, as documented by team scientists, diversity itself does not guarantee results. The promised innovation and scientific breakthroughs are dependent on the resolution of issues like communication, and integration across

the complexities of multiple domains (NRC 2015). Therefore, it is critical to establish mechanisms to encourage inclusion and effective contributions (Jehn and Bezrukova 2004).

SMD culture is complex in that it reflects at its highest level a sense of accomplishment and discovery in a unique environment—space, but the patterns of accomplishment vary across many lines—for example, by missions, by location, by roles (e.g., principal investigators, theorists, observers), by mission areas, etc. In addition, many of these groups are communities that tend to run autonomously. That very diversity is one of NASA’s greatest strengths. To sustain and ensure its long-term performance in a changing world, SMD will need to remain cognizant and initiative-taking in striving toward the human, organizational, and cultural dynamics that make for a healthy and vital research science enterprise.

The risks of adjusting culture, using rewards and messaging to shift personal perspectives, introduces risks captured by Kunda in his ethnography of a high-tech company, Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. The concepts of considering culture as something to be engineered by readjusting norms requires the benefit of expert social science engagement (Kunda 1995). Looking at broad scale organizational change introduces multiple social science challenges and suggests engagement by multiple social science disciplines are required to support a complete strategy. To name a few, ethnography, organizational psychology, team science, ethics, communications, education—all present potential opportunities to understand the existing cultural elements.

A high-level discussion of SMD culture starts with acknowledging the role of NASA’s agency-wide culture, originating through the actions of the NASA Office of the Administrator. While important not to place too much focus on the ability/responsibility of the Administrator to establish organizational culture, it should be noted that as the face and voice of the Agency to the outside community, the Administrator bears much of the responsibility to set the tone from the top that will influence practices/attitudes of the rest of the agency more broadly. The Administrator’s “Policy Statement on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility for NASA’s Workforce and Workplace” published and issued in 2022 sets the tone for NASA in establishing policies and practices to promote DEIA as a valuable contributor to a healthy and vibrant workforce. As stated by the Administrator up front in his policy statement: “DEIA enables us to recruit and engage the best talent from the full spectrum of our society—with a variety of valuable skills, capabilities, perspectives, thinking, culture, and backgrounds. This strategically enables us to achieve superior performance, problem-solving, innovation, safety, and public service.” This broad dynamic NASA-wide culture underlies what is experienced at the directorate and center levels but must be recognized as part of the overall consideration of what the SMD culture is and how it will evolve. In addition, NASA’s actions drive activities and behaviors across the broader science community as it influences the many contributors and stakeholders and the associated value chain that is supported by NASA.

Although general dialogue and concepts of culture may feel simplistic in common, popular culture, the reality is that the definitions, the logics, the application to organizational change are evolving. Common definitions used in organizational and management structure are being informed by research in the social sciences (DiMaggio 1997). Ultimately culture is a form of group practice, associated with individual working groups, teams or communities and the constraints of their individuals’ institutions. The manifestation of group culture, or individual behaviors are in the form of “performances” enacted and responded to in front of an audience of co-workers. These reactions, the associated joking and storytelling, shape organizational identities and practices (Fine and Hallett 2014). Engaging social scientists in addressing these complexities can help clarify potential solutions.

Rather than suggesting “social engineering” or “using social science,” there is benefit to integrating social and behavioral scientists in the development of plans, to better assure effective strategies informed by contemporary science. Each mission, each project is unique, each team employs a unique configuration of constraints and human interactions and relationships that impose a different culture that impacts how goals are met and science is accomplished (Vertesi et al. 2021).

Although cultural change is difficult, there are examples from NASA’s past where cultural change has occurred, resulting in improvements, demonstrating how NASA can meet cultural change challenges:

• The early goals of the Apollo program were to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. NASA’s human spaceflight program evolved out of aerospace engineering and aeronautics test flight

cultures focused primarily on testing and operating spacecraft. Although trained on collecting geological specimens (Nalewicki 2019), “Science on the Moon” was a relatively low priority and subsumed within the larger goals, and larger culture, of the Apollo program. Although the Apollo astronauts had some premission training in geology, by the 1971 Apollo 16 mission, the Apollo program had introduced scientists into mission planning, training, and finally the Apollo 17 crew to strengthen the lunar geology and planetary science focus of the program.

• In 1986, the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident identified cultural problems—if not by name—at the core of the accident. “The Commission is troubled by what appears to be a propensity of management to contain potentially serious problems and to attempt to resolve them internally rather than communicate them forward.” NASA made many changes to improve safety and operated the space shuttle safely for the next 17 years.
• In 2003, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) found that “NASA’s culture and related history contributed as much to the Columbia accident as any technical failure.” In response, NASA hired an outside consultant to assist in developing and implementing a plan, including many tools to measure progress in changing the safety climate and culture agency-wide.
• The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S. segment of the space station for use as a national laboratory with a goal of increasing non-NASA and private sector use of the orbiting outpost for basic and applied research. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act directed NASA to develop a plan for utilization of the ISS by other federal agencies and the private sector. This plan resulted in NASA selecting the current manager for the U.S. National Laboratory, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS). NASA is continuing to make forward progress toward meeting this challenge of additional utilization of ISS and building many successful public-private partnerships to provide services, payloads, and launch, contributing to a new space culture, business sector and perception of “space for all.”

These examples highlight the strengths of NASA in meeting the challenges of internal culture change when the vision, motivation and processes are clear. Many of these challenges were met with the engagement and guidance of social scientists.

SMD plays a significant role in driving the future health and vitality of the broader space and Earth sciences community beyond its researchers. The strengths of the overall NASA community in evolving cultures of multiple stakeholders will be required to reach an optimal future state for its research community.

Diversity, especially if assessing ingress pathways to a professional position, is more complex than just race, ethnicity, and gender identity. Socio-economic frameworks, and potentially geographic origins represent additional important intersectionalities. For instance, the challenges of first-generation college students of all races may be a critical intersection to examine to identify DEIA impacts that are not driven by the issues of race, ethnicity, and gender identity. Social scientists best understand this complexity, so it is important that they are included as members of the research team. The complexities associated with the intersection of demographics and cultures requires continued consultation and guidance of social scientists as members of the research community.

The social science community represents a resource that might be tapped for potential measures on health and vitality in addition to models for handling complex data. Although NASA has not been a primary source for social science research, it has funded such research at the University of Maryland, College Park; the University of Maryland, Baltimore County; the University of California, Los Angeles; and Georgetown University. SMD might productively explore what the research implies regarding NASA and its cultures, influences on diversity, and frameworks for aggregating data of varied origins. In addition, SMD could reach out to existing centers of excellence in this area—for example, NSF; the National Institutes of Health; the University of Michigan; the University of California, Irvine; the University of Washington; and elsewhere with high concentrations of scientists who study scientific teams.

The decadal surveys recommend further actions to address inclusion and SMD has responded with requests for management plans that address inclusion and as part of ROSES and other solicitations. These additional requests of proposer teams are important and when effectively implemented, could drive needed change. Effective plan development and subsequent implementation would be enhanced by expertise of social and behavioral scientists.

Guidance and engagement and possible training on implementation strategies and effective plans for these proposed efforts would assist both the proposer community and NASA.

DECADAL STATE OF THE PROFESSION ASSESSMENTS

Significant recommendations to address the health and vitality of the space and Earth science research community have been developed by the decadal surveys. Many of the recommendation themes have resonated among the individual discipline areas and merit assessment in the context of all of SMD.

Each of these decadal surveys has addressed or is currently addressing the state of their profession, including issues related to the education and career path development of their respective scientific communities.

Data mining of recommendations in decadal surveys from 2007 to 2021 across each of the science areas—planetary science, astronomy and astrophysics (Astro2010 [NRC 2010] and Astro2020 [NASEM 2021]), heliophysics, Earth sciences and applications from space, microgravity, biological and physical sciences, and captured by the various decadal surveys, reveal several resonating themes. The observations and recommendations pertinent to this statement of task that were included in prior decadal surveys are captured below. Whereas a specific decadal survey tied a problem and recommendation to a given discipline, this committee reviewed these areas and developed integrated recommendations that assess recurrence and hence the need for addressing the issue across the directorate. Each resonating theme from the decadal surveys also resonates with themes from this study (Bagenal 2021; NASEM 2021; NRC 2007a, 2010, 2011b, 2013). The full citations for these reports are included in the References chapter.

• SMD to collect data, report data publicly, use data to assess outcomes against a desired state to ensure visibility, transparency, and action (Astro2010, Astro2020, Earth sciences [NRC 2007b], heliophysics [NRC 2013], and white papers submitted to planetary science decadal survey 2023-2032¹³)
• SMD key data to include demographics, funding, proposal success rates, employment type, university programs, K-12 programs (Astro2010, Astro2020, Earth sciences [NRC 2007b], heliophysics [NRC 2013], and white papers submitted to planetary science decadal survey 2023-2032)
• SMD to implement a dedicated oversight office, possibly an independent, existing statistical federal agency can be used effectively to collect data (Astro2020)

___________________

¹³ Although the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032 has not been published at the time of this report release, multiple white papers were submitted for the steering committee’s review and consideration. This report, Foundations of a Healthy and Vital Research Community for NASA, is not and cannot be aware of the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey’s ultimate recommendations, but the white papers and their conclusions and references are publicly available and reflect solicited input of members of the community. Key topics include theory, computing, technology development, laboratory studies, planetary defense, and human exploration activities. The white papers are available on the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society website, https://baas.aas.org.

• SMD to focus on training and mentorship programs as critical (Astro2010, biological and physical sciences 2011, Astro2020, Earth sciences [NRC 2007b], and white papers submitted to planetary science decadal survey 2023-2032)
• SMD to implement a code of conduct: Reassessing discrimination and harassment and inclusive professional practices, including issues concerning quality of life that impact work—for example, access, childrearing, service work, awareness of bias, workplace culture, etc. (Astro2020, and white papers submitted to planetary science decadal survey 2023, Diniega [2021])