Rice Mallory M, Tumber-Dávila Shersingh Joseph, Baiz Marcella D, Cheng Susan J, Darragh Kathy, Estien Cesar O, Hammond J W, Ignace Danielle D, Khadempour Lily, Gaynor Kaitlyn M, Mills Kirby L, Smith Justine A, Moore Alex C
Department of Biological Sciences, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California, United States of America.
Department of Environmental Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
PLoS Biol. 2025 Jan 6;23(1):e3002933. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002933. eCollection 2025 Jan.
The discipline of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has long grappled with issues of inclusivity and representation, particularly for individuals with systematically excluded and marginalized backgrounds or identities. For example, significant representation disparities still persist that disproportionately affect women and gender minorities; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); individuals with disabilities; and people who are LGBTQIA+. Recent calls for action have urged the EEB community to directly address issues of representation, inclusion, justice, and equity. One aspect of this endeavor is to examine the use of EEB's discipline-specific language and terminology, which may have the potential to perpetuate unjust systems and isolate marginalized groups. Through a mixed-methods survey, we examined how members of the EEB community perceive discipline-specific terminology, including how they believe it can be harmful and which terms they identified as problematic. Of the 795 survey respondents, we found that almost half agreed that there are harmful terms in EEB and that many individuals from marginalized groups responded that they have been harmed by such terminology. Most of the terms identified as harmful relate to race, ethnicity, and immigration; sex and gender; geopolitical hierarchies; and historical violence. Our findings suggest there is an urgent need for EEB to confront and critically reassess its discipline-specific terminology. By identifying harmful terms and their impacts, our study represents a crucial first step toward dismantling deeply rooted exclusionary structures in EEB. We encourage individuals, communities, and institutions to use these findings to reevaluate language used in disciplinary research, teaching and mentoring, manuscripts, and professional societies. Rectifying current harms in EEB will help promote a more just and inclusive discipline.
生态学与进化生物学（EEB）学科长期以来一直在应对包容性和代表性问题，特别是对于那些背景或身份被系统性排斥和边缘化的个人。例如，显著的代表性差距仍然存在，对女性和性别少数群体、黑人、原住民和有色人种（BIPOC）、残疾人士以及LGBTQIA+群体产生了不成比例的影响。最近的行动呼吁敦促EEB社区直接解决代表性、包容性、正义和平等问题。这项工作的一个方面是审视EEB特定学科语言和术语的使用，这些语言和术语可能有延续不公正制度并孤立边缘化群体的潜在可能。通过一项混合方法调查，我们研究了EEB社区成员如何看待特定学科术语，包括他们认为这些术语可能如何有害以及他们认为哪些术语存在问题。在795名调查受访者中，我们发现几乎一半的人同意EEB中存在有害术语，许多来自边缘化群体的个人回应称他们受到了此类术语的伤害。被确定为有害的大多数术语与种族、民族和移民、性别和性取向、地缘政治等级制度以及历史暴力有关。我们的研究结果表明，EEB迫切需要面对并批判性地重新评估其特定学科术语。通过识别有害术语及其影响，我们的研究是朝着拆除EEB中根深蒂固的排他性结构迈出的关键第一步。我们鼓励个人、社区和机构利用这些研究结果重新评估学科研究、教学与指导、手稿以及专业协会中使用的语言。纠正EEB当前的危害将有助于促进一个更加公正和包容的学科。
