# Where do we want the glaciological community to be in 2073? Equality, diversity and inclusion challenges and visions from the 2023 Karthaus Summer School

Lena Nicola, Rebekka Frøystad, Antonio Juarez-Martinez, Maxence Menthon, Ana Carolina Moraes Luzardi, Katherine A Turner, Sally F Wilson, Nanna B Karlsson, Tim van den Akker, Aminat Ambelorun, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Lena Nicola, Rebekka Frøystad, Antonio Juarez-Martinez, Maxence Menthon, Ana Carolina Moraes Luzardi, et al. Where do we want the glaciological community to be in 2073? Equality, diversity and inclusion challenges and visions from the 2023 Karthaus Summer School. Journal of Glaciology, 2025, 71, pp.e68. 10.1017/jog.2025.18. hal-05450715

HAL Id: hal-05450715

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05450715v1

Submitted on 9 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Article

**Cite this article:** Nicola L et al. (2025) Where do we want the glaciological community to be in 2073? Equality, diversity and inclusion challenges and visions from the 2023 Karthaus Summer School. *Journal of Glaciology* **71**, e68, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2025.18

Received: 5 June 2024

Revised: 24 February 2025

Accepted: 5 March 2025

**Keywords:**

applied glaciology; community; EDI; ice and climate; ice-sheet modelling

**Corresponding author:** Lena Nicola;

Email: lena.nicola@pik-potsdam.de

Where do we want the glaciological
community to be in 2073? Equality, diversity
and inclusion challenges and visions from the
2023 Karthaus Summer School

Lena Nicola<fnref n="1" />,² ID, Rebekka Frøystad*,³,⁴ ID, Antonio Juarez-Martinez*,⁵ ID,
Maxence Menthon*,⁶, Ana Carolina Moraes Luzardi*,⁷ ID, Katherine A. Turner*,⁸,⁹,
Sally F. Wilson*,¹⁰ ID, Nanna B. Karlsson¹¹ ID, Tim van den Akker¹²,
Aminat Ambelorun¹³ ID, Malena Andernach¹⁴,¹⁵ ID, Mike Bentley¹⁶ ID,
Gianluca Bianchi¹⁷, Lawrence Bird¹⁸ ID, Charlotte Carter¹⁹ ID,
Andrés Castillo-Llarena²⁰, Niall Bennet Coffey²¹,²² ID, Eliza Dawson²¹ ID,
Sophie de Roda Husman²³ ID, Olaf Eisen¹⁹,²⁴ ID, Thomas Gregov²⁵,²⁶ ID,
Ian Hewitt²⁷ ID, Marte Hofsteenge²⁸ ID, Lokesh Jain²⁹, Megan James³⁰,
Franka Jesse¹² ID, Mikkel Langgaard Lauritzen³¹ ID, George Lu³² ID,
Michaela Mühl³³,³⁴,³⁵ ID, Violet Patterson¹⁰ ID, Frank Pattyn²⁶ ID,
Carleen Reijmer¹² ID, Charlotte Rahlves³,³⁶, Niklas Richter³⁷ ID,
Therese Rieckh³,⁴ ID, Florina R. Schalamon³⁸ ID, Simon Schöll<fnref n="1" />,²,
Shashwat Shukla²³ ID, Kristiina Verro¹², Ricarda Winkelmann<fnref n="1" />,² ID,
Christian Wirths³⁴,³⁵ ID and Benjamin Keisling³⁹ ID

Abstract

Despite the increased awareness and action towards Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), the glaciological community still experiences and perpetuates examples of exclusionary and discriminatory behavior. We here discuss the challenges and visions from a group predominantly

© The Author(s), 2025. Published by
Cambridge University Press on behalf of
International Glaciological Society. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use,
distribution and reproduction, provided the
original article is properly cited.

<footnote>*These authors contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Earth System Analysis and Earth Resilience Science Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany; ²Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany; ³Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; ⁴Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway; ⁵Department of Earth Physics and Astrophysics, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; ⁶Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; ⁷Department of Earth Sciences, University at Buffalo, New York, USA; ⁸British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK; ⁹Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; ¹⁰School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; ¹¹Department of Glaciology and Climate, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen, Denmark; ¹²Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; ¹³School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA; ¹⁴Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany; ¹⁵International Max Planck Research School for Earth System Modelling (IMPRS), Hamburg, Germany; ¹⁶Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, UK; ¹⁷School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; ¹⁸Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ¹⁹Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany; ²⁰MARUM—Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and Faculty of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany; ²¹Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; ²²Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; ²³Geoscience and Remote Sensing Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Delft, The Netherlands; ²⁴Faculty of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany; ²⁵Aérospatiale et Mécanique, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium; ²⁶Laboratoire de Glaciologie, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium; ²⁷Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; ²⁸School of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; ²⁹School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; ³⁰Department of Geography, King's College London, London, UK; ³¹Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; ³²Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA; ³³Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, Grenoble, France; ³⁴Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; ³⁵Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; ³⁶Norwegian Research Centre (NORCE), Bergen, Norway; ³⁷Department of Atmospheric and Cryospheric Sciences (ACINN), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; ³⁸Department of Geography and Regional Sciences, University of Graz, Graz, Austria and ³⁹University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA</footnote>
composed of early-career researchers from the 2023 edition of the Karthaus Summer School on Ice Sheets and Glaciers in the Climate System. This paper presents the results of an EDI-focused workshop that the 36 students and 12 lecturers who attended the summer school actively participated in. We identify common threads from participant responses and distill them into collective visions for the future of the glaciological research community, built on actionable steps toward change. In this paper, we address the following questions that guided the workshop: What do we see as current EDI challenges in the glaciology research community and which improvements would we like to see in the next fifty years? Contributions have been sorted into three main challenges we want and need to face: making glaciology (1) more accessible, (2) more equitable and (3) more responsible.

# 1. Introduction

While increased attention has motivated several initiatives towards a more inclusive and equitable research environment, several testimonies of unacceptable behavior within the geosciences have surfaced over the recent past, adding to the evidence of systemic inequalities embedded in the scientific community. Accounts of harassment during fieldwork (Nash, 2021), a lack of diversity at conferences and among awardees (Koenig and others, 2016; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018), documentaries about gender-based harassment and discrimination such as the movie Picture a Scientist (Witze, 2020), the National Science Foundation (NSF) report on Antarctic stations safety (NSF and others, 2022); each of these testimonies highlights a dire need for change, i.e. the need for increased awareness and action towards EDI within the geoscience community, and in particular, glaciology. Important steps that are already being undertaken include, for instance, the creation of EDI committees in research institutes, EDI awards given by research funds, or EDI sessions at conferences (see e.g. European Geosciences Union, 2024). The glaciological community has changed in many ways over the past decades: for example, women did not participate in fieldwork with the British Antarctic Survey before 1987 (Hulbe and others, 2010). At the same time, it is clear from the numbers and testimonies of unacceptable behavior, that there are still critical improvements to be made.

Recognizing where and when actions to promote EDI in glaciology should occur, and who is at the center of them, can allow us to identify critical and potentially transformative opportunities for systemic change that can bring the future glaciological community more in line with our present values. Moreover, research shows that an increase in the application of EDI principles within the scientific community is critical to delivering the best scientific knowledge and keeping the best scientists in research academia (Nielsen and others, 2017; AlShebli and others, 2018; Page, 2019). Creating an inclusive and diverse glaciological community is key to boosting scientific creativity and discovery, and critical for answering the many glaciological questions that will impact the world in the coming century.

The Karthaus Summer School on Ice Sheets and Glaciers in the Climate System (Karthaus; https://www.projectscience.uu.nl/iceclimate/karthaus/, last access: 05 March 2025) brings together participants and lecturers from around the world who study glaciology, thus representing an exceptional opportunity to convene an otherwise disparate and localized community around a common vision and set of shared goals. We used this platform to discuss the EDI challenges we currently face within the glaciological research community, how we can overcome them, and how we envision our research community to be in 50 years. Here, we present the outcomes of our discussions and articulate a shared future vision for glaciological research that can build on the positive changes that have been achieved and are currently underway in glaciology, address the gaps that remain, and promote proactive responses to future challenges.

# 2. Methodology

To raise awareness of EDI issues in the glaciological community, a workshop on the topic was included in the 2023 program of Karthaus, which was held from 24 May to 2 June 2023. The EDI workshop was the first in the history of the summer school, which has been held more than 20 times since 1995. Students and lecturers alike discussed current challenges in the glaciological community along with potential solutions to these issues. Participants came together around a set of questions including: “What do we wish to see in the community in fifty years?”, “Why does EDI matter for the field?”, “What are the barriers to EDI in the field?” and “How can we address these barriers?” (see Tooth and Viles (2021) for other examples of framing questions). Students and lecturers joined together in groups of three to discuss the questions and suggest actions to tackle the identified issues. At the end of the workshop, a time capsule to express
common wishes for our research community in fifty years was cre-
ated: participants were asked to write down their visions for 2073
and responses were anonymously collected at the end of the sum-
mer school. Eighteen submissions were received that resulted from
the workshop discussions. A time capsule is, oftentimes, a con-
tainer with stored information that is left (i.e. buried) for future
generations to find. Instead of performing such a burial, we here
summarize the main outputs and perspectives from the work-
shop and outline the identified challenges and proposed counter-
measures. Original submissions from the workshop are included
in Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A. We further integrate the out-
comes of the three-person discussion groups during the workshop
within the text.

We, the authors, are aware of our selected view on the cur-
rent challenges in the glaciological community (arising from our
respective socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds), and cannot
provide a holistic and detailed piece on all the current EDI issues
and solutions. We note that the majority of authors are training
and/or employed at European or American institutions, but also
clarify that our institutional affiliations belie a myriad of lived
experiences that transcend these boundaries. To better discuss the
mentioned themes and topics, further literature research was car-
ried out, and additional data sources were accessed. The paper
focuses on the time capsule submissions centered around EDI
topics (cf. Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A), opting to exclude
submissions discussing the development of glaciological science
by 2073 or the progressing impact of climate change. The full text
of the time capsule submissions is available in the appendices; we
encourage readers to consider these, as meaningful perspectives in
their own right.

In the following text, the term “we” refers to the early-career
authors who have worked to distill a wide-ranging collection
of visions and recommendations into a coherent framework.
Although our work has been guided by feedback from the instruc-
tors listed as co-authors, some differences in opinions concerning
the details remain. “We” statements represent common perspec-
tives and articulate a unified vision which we argue is essential to
the vitality of glaciology in the next half-century. We use the terms
“glaciologists” and “researchers” to refer to the broader glaciolog-
ical and scientific communities (which we are part of) engaged
in the study of the cryosphere. By 2073, we, the authors, will
have (long) retired from our careers in glaciology. On the way
there, however, we will have an increasing agency to implement
the changes we propose in the following text and pledge to adhere
to the principles we set out. Thus, we see our recommendations
as a set of action items that we can pursue, in partnership with
those who have more power and agency than we do today, and with
those future glaciologists whose ideas and needs we can uplift in the
future.

Although by no means exhaustive, we see our contribution as an
important step forward for the glaciological community. While our
focus lies on the cryosphere/glaciological community, the issues
we face are not all particular to our field. Therefore, proposed
suggestions can likely be easily transferred to other geophysical
communities.

To derive a common vision for the future of our research
community, we began with the concept of EDI as it arises from
its three constituting words: Equality, which ensures everyone is
treated equally, independently of characteristics (cf. the Equality
Act, UK Government, 2010); Diversity, which entails recognizing,
respecting and honoring the identities and differences of individ-
uals related to their experiences, identities, and social and cultural

backgrounds; and Inclusion, which refers to an open, welcoming,
and affirming research environment and culture. This provided
a helpful starting point, and it led to ideas and discussions that
do not strictly align with these definitions. As such, some of the
actions identified in this manuscript challenge and expand our own
notions of EDI. We invite the reader to consider how our vision
for glaciology in 2073 may be rooted in EDI while also growing
to encompass a wide range of issues that impact the glaciologi-
cal community today and in the future. Rather than restrict our
visions to fit within these boxes, we worked to articulate an alter-
native framing that can be synergistic with equality, diversity and
inclusion without being limited to it.

In this paper, we summarize and discuss the topics raised in the EDI workshop under the following three main challenges: (1) making glaciology more accessible, (2) more equitable and (3) more responsible. The subjects of submissions made at the workshop and time capsule are visually summarized in Fig. 1.

3. **Challenge 1: Making glaciology more accessible**

The lack of diversity is a central challenge our research community faces today, meaning that for some groups the glaciological research community, i.e. a career in glaciology or glaciological knowledge, might not be as accessible as it is to others (Robel and others, 2024). Historically excluded groups can include people from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds (minority meaning under-represented within the field of glaciology), persons with disabilities and neurodivergent people, individuals in the LGBTQIA+ community and minoritized genders, lower socioeconomic groups, and minority religious groups. We first discuss ethnic and cultural diversity within glaciology and tie it to another important aspect to improve accessibility: the practice of open-access science.

When it comes to racial and ethnic diversity, studies showcase
an alarming picture within the geosciences: hostile environments
fueled by biases, discrimination, harassment and a lack of role
models in senior positions work to maintain low racial and ethnic
diversity over time (Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; Marin-Spiotta
and others, 2020). While we perceive the glaciological commu-
nity to be predominantly white, we find this statement is not
often acknowledged, discussed, or documented in our field of
research. A recent study led by Robel and others (2024) por-
trays our perception using available data: For instance, the authors
looked into US-based researchers participating at the AGU Fall
Meeting in 2022 and found that people who identify as ‘white’
represented 77% of the AGU Cryosphere section, compared to
67% of all AGU sections. This contrasts with the current 58%
white US population (US Census, 2024). A considerable effort is
needed to change the general poor diversity by facilitating access
to resources and creating a safe and welcoming environment for
people of color. For that purpose, we can redirect the reader, for
instance, to Chaudhary and Berhe (2020), who give practical tips
to actively fight racism in academia.

An issue that was specially mentioned in the Karthaus work-
shop was a perceived lack of diverse nationalities in glaciologi-
cal research, particularly from the Global South. While ethnicity
and nationality have different definitions, we argue that we can
improve ethnic and cultural diversity in our field **by decreas-
ing the North-South divide in our research.** The term “Global
South”, whose use and appropriateness are discussed in public
and academic forums (see e.g. Pagel and others, 2014; Haug and
others, 2021; Patrick and Huggins, 2023), refers to countries in
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Visual summary of the outcomes of the EDI workshop of the 2023 Karthaus Summer School. The subjects of the wishes for the time capsule include improvements in terms of care work, diversity, science-policy interaction, gender balance, equality, North–South divide, carbon footprint, climate impacts mitigation, advancement of technologies, respectful working environment, open-access science and collaboration with Indigenous communities (cf. Table A1 and A2 in Appendix A). We hope that those proposed changes will “flow” together to create a more accessible, more equitable, and more responsible research community.</figcaption></figure>

Latin America, Asia and Africa with lower levels of socioeconomic development related to their colonial past, compared to countries in Europe, North America and Oceania, with higher levels of socioeconomic development, and which are often referred to as the “Global North” (Lewis and Wigen, 1997; Dados and Connell, 2012; Mudaly and Chirikure, 2023). Adding to Robel and others (2024), who notably show that >85% of current glaciology research (i.e. glacier and ice sheet research) is carried out in Europe and North America, the North–South divide in our research can be exemplified in membership statistics of the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences (IACS): as of September 2023, regions of affiliation were split between just 0.7% in Africa, 3.8% in Oceania, 4.7% in South America, 24.0% in North America, 24.9% in Asia, with the largest contribution from Europe (42.2%) (IACS, 2023).

Generally, funding biases within academia and research have led to a disparity between funding allocated to Global North research teams versus Global South ones (Talavera-Soza, 2023). This trend has led to a mass emigration of skilled people from the Global South to the Global North in search of better career opportunities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), a phenomenon termed “brain drain” (Pellegrino, 2001). Although there are cryospheric science centers in the Global South (see e.g. WMO, 2022), we assert they may be less connected, visible, and/or acknowledged by the Global North-centered glaciological community. Explicit examples of this are found in international efforts that aim to bring together projections and observations of changes in the cryosphere and sea-level rise (cf. Table B1 in Appendix B). To our knowledge, these examples feature researchers affiliated solely with Global North institutions. The next phases of these initiatives would benefit from including the participation of Global South institutions and researchers. This course of action requires integration and strengthening of the scientific and institutional ties between the different glaciological communities.

The global distribution of research institutions where Karthaus participants (1995–2023) were based is shown in Fig. 2. A majority of students were based at Global North research institutions throughout this period, including 100% in 2023. This fact is closely linked to both the global distribution of glaciology research centers and the general admission process to Karthaus, with the latter being itself related to funding sources (e.g. by European projects) and cost of student participation. The affiliation of many early-career researchers attending the Karthaus summer school does not match their nationality or home country. Postgraduate students often seek out international career opportunities that might not be given in their home countries (Banks and Bhandari, 2012); this is not unique to glaciology. Ideally, international conferences, projects, or summer schools would feature a representative proportion of Global North to Global South participants, reflecting the global population, or at least the communities that may directly benefit from glaciological research (Robel and others, 2024). Although it would be unrealistic to argue that every country should have glaciological study programs, fostering (new) glaciological centers in the Global South as well as more funding to the existing centers, would give more local opportunities for a career in glaciology. An aim for the future of Karthaus could be to increase the number of students and lecturers affiliated with Global South institutions. Implementing this change lies in the hands of those running the Karthaus school now and in the future. Another suggestion could be to support the long-term stability of existing initiatives in the Global South (e.g. National Himalayan Cryospheric Research Lab University of Kashmir, 2023; Universidad de Magallanes Chile, 2023, to name but a few) by funding agencies or societies, such as IGS, EGU, or AGU.

For a positive example of how to diversify the nationalities represented in scholarly networks, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reviewed its author selection strategy in response to the statistics of previous IPCC reports: the Global South had an authorship contribution of only 31%, despite
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Geographical distribution of home institutions from participants in Karthaus since 1995 (taken from the Karthaus website; https://www.projectscience.uu.nl/iceclimate/karthaus/, last accessed 05 March 2024). The map was created using the python `plotly` library using the 'natural earth' projection and the country polygons from datahub.io (2024), last accessed 18 February 2025. To avoid misinterpretations, mainland France and French overseas territories or departments are plotted separately in this figure.</figcaption></figure>

being home to 84% of the global population. Over the last IPCC cycle, the Global South contribution has increased to 42% and 43% for the SR6 and AR6 reports respectively. While IPCC authors can be nominated by their respective countries' focal points, the final decision on who becomes an IPCC author lies at the IPCC bureau. While these statistics show improvement, with similar trends for gender balance, they are still far from being representative (CarbonBrief, 2023).

Additionally, running international conferences in the Global South would facilitate international collaborations and give visibility to the science being generated there. An inspiring example lies in the biennial Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Open Science Conference, which has been held in a variety of locations (e.g. Chile in 2024, India in 2022, Switzerland in 2018, Malaysia in 2016, New Zealand in 2014, etc.). By organizing more conferences in the Global South, the higher costs of travel would fall onto the (generally better funded) participants joining from the Global North, while at the same time allowing local and regional Early Career scientists to participate at a lower cost; an opportunity that bachelor and master students otherwise rarely have. This is not only beneficial for the existing glaciological community at the conference site, but an opportunity to involve interested students and promote their careers as glaciologists.

To further facilitate cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary collaborations, we suggest that research centers and both national and international funding agencies should (1) continue or begin sponsoring cross-national research projects, and summer schools, and support existing organizations and (2) further the practice of inviting a diverse set of collaborators for funded research visits. We, as predominantly PhD candidates, may have the possibility for such research visits ourselves, and in turn, can facilitate future requests addressed to us at a later stage in our careers. In this way, we can help increase the diverse range of expertise relevant

to our science and enhance the societal relevance and resonance of cryospheric research outputs.

We identify recruitment for academic positions and undergraduate/graduate schools as another vital process to transform our research community by broadening opportunities for underrepresented minorities. When we have positions to fill, reviewing our advertisement content and language is important, although studies are not fully conclusive in how far the use of gender-neutral terms and EDI statements is impactful (Carnes and others, 2019; Castilla and Rho, 2023; Heath and others, 2023). More importantly, our institutions can help by providing mentorship, networking opportunities and support—actions that are known to lead to an increased sense of community and increased interest in STEM careers (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019; Rockinson-Szapkiw and others, 2021). This could take the form of, for example, organized social activities or a “Welcome Center” for new employees to have an easy start in a country foreign to them or in a graduate school. The strategies should accommodate the laws and regulations in each country. For instance, a series of affirmative actions such as race and socioeconomic-based quotas were applied in universities in Brazil and were shown to be successful in decreasing racial and economic disparities in higher education a decade later (Zeidan and others, 2024). In other countries, such as the US, where racial and economic quotas in recruitment are illegal, other strategies can be used to promote diversity such as requesting a diversity statement in the application process, which outlines the applicants' actions and commitment to contribute to EDI. In places where none of these measures are realisable, advertisements can be made appealing to underrepresented groups by posting them in neighborhoods, schools, and forums attended by these groups, together with outreach activities. Several organizations also provide support, awareness and advocacy for existing marginalized
professionals and students in our field, inspiring a diverse new generation of glaciological researchers through visibility (see Table B1 in Appendix B).

In summary, we raise four action points to accelerate the transition towards greater ethnic and cultural diversity and better integration of the Global South in the international cryosphere community: integration in international collaborations, available training, additional funding and recruitment strategies. We argue that the responsibility lies with current leaders, and us as future leaders, of cryospheric science to ensure glaciological knowledge is shared globally from places where it is highly concentrated to places where it is nascent.

We further urge the community to make glaciology more accessible by **continuing to move towards open-access science**, which ensures transparent and freely available research without significant barriers. Open access most traditionally relates to published scientific articles, but can also concern data, models, hardware and software. We have gathered knowledge of open-access resources in glaciology to evaluate whether our field of research generally adheres to open-access principles (see Table B1 in Appendix B). Though our judgment is bound to be somewhat anecdotal, we see the philosophy of open-access science generally being followed in glaciology. Many of the most widely read journals in our field are open-access journals (i.e. Journal of Glaciology, Annals of Glaciology, The Cryosphere); they are, however, predominantly English-language journals. This might still be a barrier to the dissemination of papers in, e.g. the Global South, which could be addressed by wider (automated) language support, allowing for additional paper summaries or abstracts written in different languages. However, open-access publications often require substantial fees, which can be economically unattainable for researchers in low-income countries and/or with limited research funding. To ensure equitable access to publishing opportunities, fee waivers, subsidies, or alternative funding models can alleviate this financial burden for under-represented and resource-limited communities, and for most journals these are already in common practice. As the amount of glaciological data has increased significantly in recent years (Gärtner-Roer and others, 2022), we consider inclusive data and code management practices to also contribute to open-access science, as well as facilitate the usage of such data, software, and tools. One way to facilitate inclusive research is to broaden the use of cloud computing in our field and enable free or shared access to High-Performance Computing (HPC) resources. The former spares the time-consuming installation of software and tools, making research more straightforward and accessible to those without a computer science background, and also tends to provide data storage to users. The latter gives access to computing resources for poorly funded research centers and allows for more efficient research (e.g. HPC is needed for most ice-sheet modeling research, yet is not available in many institutions, especially in the Global South).

Open-access initiatives must be developed (or continued) and funded further, such that essential training is available for anyone wishing to access glaciological data and computational tools. We also observe that a large amount of information is passed on through field campaigns and training within experimental research groups. We therefore see a potential to improve open-access practices, especially within field and laboratory work in glaciological research. This could be achieved by, for example, creating written and video tutorials and in-person and online workshops. Large field collaborations could also set aside funding for thorough documentation of processes and inclusion of researchers in

less-connected groups. When applying for grants or organizing these workshops ourselves, we can make sure that time, dedicated funding, or even the cost of extra personnel is included for such activities. It is note-worthy that the EU funding scheme Horizon already mandates that open access to publications and open science principles are applied throughout their projects.

We argue that conducting glaciological research at an institution that is not well-connected with other research groups in the field becomes feasible when open-access resources exist. This also helps decrease the gap between institutions with different financial resources since subscriptions to certain journals and software programs can be expensive. In this way, open-access science improves diversity and equity within the field. Furthermore, it allows for glaciological methods to be more easily scrutinized by non-scientists, and can therefore introduce accountability and increase public trust in the research being done. This collaborative and inclusive spirit of open-access science is at the core of what we wish for the field of glaciology in fifty years. At the career stage of PhD students, we can ensure our published work, including code, is well-documented and reproducible.

We are committed to making glaciology more accessible by diversifying the community and adhering to open-access principles. When applying for funding or creating job opportunities, we invite researchers already in positions of power to co-develop opportunities with researchers from less connected universities. We are committed to doing the same when we have reached that stage.

## 4. Challenge 2: Making glaciology more equitable

While we discuss the accessibility of our research community in the previous section, we are convinced that we need to also work more towards retaining those who enter into a career in glaciology. We hence argue that glaciology should be made more *equitable*, meaning that we want a more fair and just research community in which, for example, care work and maintaining a successful career are not contradictory, and harassment and bullying are left in the past.

We hope to make glaciology more equitable **by advancing gender balance and facilitating care work**. We here define balance as access to equal opportunities and spaces, where participation within the research community is representative of the diversity in the population. Worldwide, less than 30% of researchers are women (UIS UNESCO, 2024), while women represent around half of the global population. At the 2023 Karthaus summer school, while 19 out of the 36 students were female, only 3 out of the 12 lecturers were women. Hulbe and others (2010) as well as recent membership statistics further support our perceived gender imbalance in the field: a survey from the IGS states that ~43% of survey participants identify as female (IGS, 2023). The percentage is even lower at the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences (IACS), where 32.5% identify as such (IACS, 2023). At the main cryospheric science meeting in Chile (i.e. SOCHICRI), ~33% of attendees were women and only ~28% of oral presentations were given by women in the 2021 edition. Although the number has increased compared to previous editions of the conference, there is a long way to go to achieve balance. While these current statistics on gender balance highlight that progress is still needed, it is encouraging that they are documented. Having access to this data is crucial, as it provides a clear starting point for meaningful change, such as, for example, the report by the Ad-hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (ADI) of IGS (IGS, 2023).
What is more, when it comes to having children, parenthood has an unequal impact in academia (Morgan and others, 2021). Female academics spend more time on housework and childcare in academia than their male counterparts (Schiebinger and Gilmartin, 2010). Cech and Blair-Loy (2019) find that, in the US, 40% of women with full-time jobs in science leave or go part-time after having their first child. While we did not find explicit data on this for the field of glaciology, we assert that our research community is not an exception to this general picture. In glaciology, the question of who cares for the child becomes especially pronounced when it comes to fieldwork (Lininger and others, 2021).

For 2073, we wish for balanced genders at all levels in our field of research. Although today the concept of balance is compelling because the status quo is unbalanced (Ranganathan and others, 2021), we recognize that it may become a less relevant framework as historically excluded groups join the ranks of glaciologists in greater numbers. We advocate for an understanding of balance not in strict numerical terms, but within a framework that recognizes the obstacles and challenges that limit the participation of members of historically excluded groups. In this context, achieving balance would include the end of the “leaky pipeline”, the phenomenon that scholars belonging to minorities become progressively under-represented at higher academic career levels (Wickware, 1997; Resmini, 2016; Popp and others, 2019; Ranganathan and others, 2021), also referred to as a “hostile obstacle course” (Berhe and others, 2022) or a road full of “potholes” (Alegria and others, 2016). We envision that, in 50 years, care work will be less of an obstacle for a career in glaciology and science in general. We here refer to care work not only with respect to the care for children but also for partners, parents, family members, or friends with mental or physical health issues.

The presence of many initiatives promoting, empowering, and supporting women in science makes us hopeful for the future (cf. Table A1, Appendix B). To improve the current conditions, we further wish to highlight Alderson and others (2023)'s five considerations to help (female) early-career researchers succeed, which are: (1) formalization and enhancement of mentorship opportunities; (2) parental leave and flexible working hours; (3) more considerate recruitment procedures to improve the gender balance; (4) reducing the number of short-term contracts; and (5) having more transparency and clarity on salary scales, promotion criteria, tenure and decision-making. These recommendations are similar to those that we suggest to help increase the ethnic and cultural diversity in our research community. We further propose more flexible solutions for caregivers to join conferences, summer schools, or field trips. These could include providing childcare options at conferences and summer schools or providing funding for alternative caregivers for example (cf. Table A1 in Appendix A). Such initiatives should be available independent of the gender of the caregiver, to ensure that our community does not amplify the narrative of women being the main caregivers. Efforts to increase participation are often evaluated through tracking numbers and setting quantitative goals (Ranganathan and others, 2021; Karplus and others, 2022; Robel and others, 2024). This is a necessary practice for understanding the historical and present context that glaciologists work within, and can be helpful for goal-setting in the near term. However, in our efforts to envision the glaciology community in fifty years, we realized that a strictly quantitative understanding of balance is not sufficient for reaching our goals. Instead, we argue for an understanding of balance that can evolve in response to the growing diversity of the population, and it is far more complex than simply assigning a fixed proportion of

the research force to minority groups. This expanded framework is essential within an international context, where quantification of people with some identities is lacking (e.g. non-binary), or where definitions of historically excluded groups differ. Although these differences pose challenges for meeting our goals, recognizing them can be a crucial first step towards navigating the path towards our vision of a more equitable glaciology. An expanded view of balance can guide us to also embrace intersectionality, a lens through which we can better understand the experiences of people with multiple historically excluded identities. In summary, we advocate that balance should be viewed as an evolving consideration, requiring the creation and maintenance of spaces where these conversations can take place and where strategies for maintaining diversity can be actively explored and implemented within a changing landscape.

We want to make glaciology more equitable **by improving fieldwork conditions.** The expansion of modeling, lab sample analysis, and remote sensing processing has helped diversify glaciology and the wider geosciences by providing alternatives to fieldwork. Despite this, fieldwork remains a fundamental aspect of glaciology (Stokes and others, 2019; Shafer and others, 2022; Ackerman and others, 2023). Opportunities for participating in fieldwork often require previous experience and specific equipment, including clothing and gear, which presents technical, physical and financial obstacles for many aspiring glaciologists. In this sense, fieldwork remains inaccessible especially to many marginalized groups and may lead to an endemic loss of diversity further down the geosciences career pipeline (Johannesen and others, 2022; Clark, 2023). The origins of fieldwork can also be dated back to colonialist practices when field expeditions were used to create surveys based on land suitability for settlement (Klymiuk, 2021; Liboiron, 2021). To this day, racially fuelled harassment and discrimination, along with sexual harassment incidents, remain ongoing issues within the field of geosciences, with researchers raising concerns over poor protection and support (cf. Ackerman and others, 2023, for a proposal to plan for and prevent sexual harassment during fieldwork, specifically in the context of oceanography). We hope that in 2073, sexual harassment and assault are non-existent.

We consider our discipline to be in part surrounded by a culture of silence around the mentally and physically challenging aspects of fieldwork, often excluding people with disabilities or mental health needs, leaving them to self-advocate for their right to be out in the field (Stokes and others, 2019; Clark, 2023). We highlight the need for fieldwork to better represent the diversity in glaciology, rather than maintaining the idea of hardship being a “character-building exercise” (Maguire, 1998; Stokes and others, 2019).

To both make fieldwork more diverse and prevent harassment, we find it crucial to provide adequate training to aspiring glaciologists (on this topic, please also refer to Boon, 2024). This training should include basic mountaineering and safety practices, a code of conduct, active bystander training and technical training for glaciological measurements. With strategies on how to create a positive and inclusive Antarctic fieldwork environment recently presented by Karplus and others (2022) and already great initiatives in place (like a gear-sharing program, see Appendix B, Table B1), our community would further benefit from providing more funding for students to participate in inclusive field training. While the Karthaus Summer School does not include extensive fieldwork, all incoming students and staff must adhere to a code of conduct formulated for the 10-day stay in Italy. This is an example of an action that helps cultivate a safe and respectful culture (see also Dance and others, 2024). Please note that the proposed actions would
not address the colonial aspects of the history of fieldwork, which
cannot be dealt with by individual researchers or groups alone.

Overall, we want to commit to making glaciology more equi-
table on fieldwork and in other workplaces by **fostering a respect-ful working environment**. The misuse of power and bullying are
not uncommon phenomena in science (Else, 2018; Moss, 2018;
Van Scherpenberg and others, 2021; Mahmoudi, 2023). In the field
of glaciology, we see a strong desire to create a more respectful
working environment at departmental and institutional scales to
promote respect and understanding among peers, but generating
actionable steps is often an obstacle. We further identify more
transparency as an important step forward related to, for instance,
evaluation criteria for tenure positions (Nielsen, 2016) or decisions
on funding (Gladstone and others, 2023).

What is more, studies show that structural racism is more pro-
nounced in the geosciences community than in any other STEM
field (Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; Beane and others, 2021).
Adding to that, other studies have shown that members of the
LGBTQIA+ community face a more hostile environment in STEM
compared to their peers (Cech, 2015; Cech and Pham, 2017).
We see the scale of institutional power imbalance as the main
obstacle to change, leading to fear of failure, and resistance or
disengagement from people in higher positions. However, we rec-
ommend, for example, performing transparent, actionable surveys,
that would be anonymized by independent facilitators and can be
the basis for identifying local/institution-specific problems as well
as solutions. Other actions could include introducing a diversi-
fied ombuds team at the workplace, providing allyship training
(Stadnyk, 2024), and providing a web of peers or mentors to stu-
dents in other institutions that could offer support in difficult situ-
ations. At the start of our careers in glaciology, as PhD researchers,
we might only be able to participate in such training opportunities
when available, but engaging now allows us to learn the tools to
facilitate and implement actions later on. Another strategy that can
help foster a healthy workplace is adopting the concept of shared
leadership in mentoring: Distributing positions of power within
a group of leaders can decrease conflict and enhance well-being,
which helps increase the performance of groups and the satisfac-
tion of employees (Zhu and others, 2018). This can also create an
environment that is less prone to power abuse.

We invite everyone in the community to strike down unwanted and hostile behavior, such as misconduct on fieldwork, and speak up for those who cannot or fear the potential consequences. However, it is essential to acknowledge the dangers inherent in “speaking for someone” without their consent. We think all glaciologists are responsible for actively creating a culture of “listening” so that the voices of those who do speak up are heard and taken seriously. In addition, we argue for pushing structural improvements that make misconduct less likely or acceptable. Allegations of discriminatory or abusive behavior must be taken seriously, also across institutions.

Both institutions and glaciologists across all levels share the
responsibility to make glaciology more equitable. Institutions can
provide care work solutions and training for fieldwork practices.
We hold all those who take part in glaciology (including us authors)
responsible for reporting bullying and harassment, while institu-
tions must provide frameworks to deal with this.

**5. Challenge 3: Making glaciology more responsible**

Glaciology is an interdisciplinary research topic in itself, and as a
research community, none of us stands alone. Within the Karthaus
workshop, several comments were directed towards this aspect that

we summarize under the concept of *responsibility*: the responsibil-
ity we have with regards to the history and cultural background of
our research, the responsibility of “making our science count” (and
not only conducting research in the ‘ivory tower’) or the respon-
sibility we have towards our own carbon emissions. The third
challenge we identify is thus making glaciology more *responsible*.

As glaciologists, we call for the **improvement of direct collaboration between local and Indigenous communities and scientists.** These actions should be especially focused on communities strongly affected by the global climate crisis and those in places where glaciological research is conducted. Robel and others (2024) even conclude that due to the discrepancy in demographics between who is conducting glaciological research and who is benefiting from it (such as near glacier or coastal communities), research findings and subsequent policies have less effect, value, or overall use, coming with neo-colonialist undertones.

When working on, and producing knowledge about Indigenous
land, we urge glaciologists to respect the wishes and sovereignty of
the people who inhabit these lands. Given colonial aspects of the
history of glaciology (Mercer and Simpson, 2023; Robel and others,
2024), interacting with Indigenous peoples presents challenges that
go beyond communication and present-day cultural differences. By
establishing relationships with people in Indigenous communities,
scientists can share questions, knowledge and skills sensitively and
respectfully with local communities. In turn, Indigenous commu-
nities can, should they wish to, provide scientists with invaluable
knowledge of the natural world built upon millennia of observa-
tion and knowledge-sharing through the generations within these
communities. This connection can help develop science in a way
that acknowledges Indigenous knowledge, needs, and skills, and
includes local communities in all parts of the scientific process
(from defining research questions to conducting research and com-
municating findings). We argue that creating an environment of
collaboration and knowledge exchange with local and Indigenous
people could be mutually beneficial. Building such relationships
may take time, trust and commitment to establish. At all times, it
is essential to ensure that locals share experiences and knowledge
that illuminate and complement scientific findings on their terms.

There are examples of projects (Mahoney and others, 2021; MacDonell and others, 2022; Laptander and others, 2024) or initiatives that attempt to facilitate this kind of collaboration (cf. Appendix B, Table B1). Following Carey and Moulton (2023), we invite glaciologists to ask a series of questions before starting fieldwork to ensure responsible field research. Among these are: “Whose land are we studying?”, and “Will our research incorporate other forms of cryospheric knowledge, such as local unpublished expertise or Indigenous knowledge?”. We recommend following existing guidelines and recognizing whether there are already existing local initiatives to support, rather than creating top-down schemes outside local communities, as well as acknowledging their contribution to the scientific articles fairly, (see also Sjöberg and others, 2018; Huntington and others, 2019; Doering and others, 2022).

We further want to make our science more responsible **by increasing our impact on climate policy.** As polar regions are sites for geopolitical tensions (Dodds and Nuttall, 2016; Nielsen and Nielsen, 2016), glaciology can be important to inform governance of these regions and understand the consequences of climate change (for example, see Colgan and others, 2016). Among us, concerns were raised regarding climate politics being ineffective and not sufficiently based on the science provided by researchers (by us). Therefore, we call for more emphasis on linking glaciological research with climate policy and decision-making.
The 2024 joint policy brief by EU research project PolarRES and CRiceS can be seen as one example of this (The CRiceS and PolarRES Consortia, 2024). Some of us early-career researchers have also already participated in dedicated policy events that are aimed at strengthening the ties between, for instance, ice-sheet modelers and local coastal planners or practitioners. In terms of climate change mitigation, the scientific community is already providing or can provide more insights into the changing cryosphere and its impacts on livelihoods.

In fifty years, we will live in a warmer, more climatically extreme world where *adaptation* policies also become increasingly important. Glaciologists are leading experts on how sea level and water resources are affected by climate change. We hope we can share this knowledge even more generously and that our research will be targeted (even) more towards the needs of society. For this, we could, for instance, follow more closely published briefs by policymakers for setting the priorities for our research. We can also make sure our publications are freely available and further engage in outreach activities. In the past, glaciologists have contributed to policies on numerous occasions, such as having a key role in securing the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 (Scully, 2011), or collaborating on international projects such as the IPCC.

These international efforts have proven important for voicing concerns and communicating what we know of the future. It is our responsibility as scientists to synthesize knowledge in such a way that it is understandable, transparent and relevant for policy-makers. At the same time, we recognize that natural science does not hold all the answers; notably, the experiences and perspectives of local and Indigenous people are essential to creating effective policies (Robel and others, 2024). Climate adaptation generally happens on a national scale and in local communities, neither of which are spaces where scientists can claim decision-making power. Instead, we argue we should make our research even more understandable and available for both the public and policy-makers. By strengthening international collaborations and outreach, voters and elected leaders can approach research and apply glaciological knowledge to decisions on their terms. If not specifically included in third-party project proposals, outreach activities might not be paid or not considered part of the academic “job description”. We authors can ensure that communicating our science is given enough time and priority in projects and invite everyone else to do the same.

Lastly, we want to make glaciology more responsible **by reducing the carbon footprint of cryospheric research.** According to literature, academics on average have a carbon footprint above the per-capita value of their countries of residence (Grémillet, 2008; Fox and others, 2009; Spinellis and Louridas, 2013; Stevens, 2020). We are aware that in the field of glaciology, going to remote places for measurement campaigns (the Polar Regions, Himalayas, Patagonia, European Alps, etc.) and/or using energy-intensive facilities (cold rooms, computing resources) in addition to office spaces and conference travels create a high carbon footprint of the conducted research. Therefore, we want to help reduce the carbon footprint of cryospheric research in the future. As climate-change-induced risks are increasing with every increment of warming (IPCC, 2023), we propose that the academic system must do its share in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases as much as possible. The first step to reducing our footprint is to assess it properly and to identify ways to reduce our emissions. For example, publicly publishing our traveling choices (to workshops, conferences, etc.) is a strong social incentive. By promoting our assessments, we could help to better inform the carbon footprint

of academia, which is currently poorly documented and not fully standardized (Helmers and others, 2021). Reducing our climate footprint, individually and collectively, leads to better well-being and a feeling of coherence with our messages (Thompson, 2011; Langin, 2019) as we witness the impacts of climate change first-hand, e.g. when conducting fieldwork on a receding glacier. As climate researchers, we would further gain more credibility in the eye of the non-scientific community and may influence citizens, policy-makers, and companies to reduce their carbon footprint themselves (Attari and others, 2016), thus mitigating cryosphere loss and climate change. Reducing air travel to meetings, workshops and conferences might come at the expense of reducing inclusivity, as described above. By 2073 we hope that such contradictory demands can be treated in a well-balanced manner, by e.g. mandatory carbon off-setting of business travels or allowing for more online participation for events. Here, institutional support is key, i.e. providing options for employees to travel in a more sustainable way by e.g. allowing for more time and higher costs when choosing against flying.

Our commitment is here to further include more local communities in our research, if applicable, when on fieldwork. We invite everyone to support initiatives that are designed by local and Indigenous populations, to use our possibilities to raise their voices. Furthermore, when researching these fragile glacier landscapes, we must be aware of and limit as much as possible our impact as researchers within the climate crisis.

In general, the proposed solutions to the issues that we have raised in this article intersect and can strengthen one another. By listening to the needs of local communities, we might ask more applied and sophisticated research questions and create scientific evidence that is more useful to policymakers. By welcoming locals to lead and take part in glaciology, the climate impact of our research can be reduced.

## 6. Conclusions

Summarized in three categories, we discussed important EDI challenges present within the glaciological community and proposed different solutions or levers of change to overcome them. Obstacles to solutions suggested in the workshop generally followed the themes of scale, financial and workload capacity, and fear: fear of failure, fear of resistance and fear of disengagement. We would argue that building foundations for change, however small, can be our first step towards overcoming these obstacles to enact meaningful change in our community. By sharing challenges and visions from the 2023 Karthaus summer school with the glaciological community, we hope to echo the message that “practice makes different”, even if it does not make it “perfect” (Gilmore, 2021). We wish to highlight that solving the above-mentioned problems will be beneficial for the whole community’s well-being as well as its research outputs. Since representation and visibility matter, we encourage and uplift ongoing projects and initiatives working towards more EDI in our field, examples of which we list in Appendix B, Table B1.

In this paper, we document the outcomes of the inaugural EDI workshop within a long-existing educational program that has trained hundreds of glaciologists over recent decades. Among a wide-ranging set of recommendations, we have linked common threads and identified touchpoints where action at different scales and contexts can move our community towards a vision that reflects our shared commitments to accessibility, equity and responsibility. We have also aimed at showing how these principles
are intertwined. Glaciological knowledge is produced all over the world, in settings that may have little in common, and yet through this process, we have attempted to craft a vision that is globally relevant and responsive. The structure of the Karthaus summer school, which brings together participants of many nationalities from many institutions, was critical to our ability to integrate disparate reflections into a vision not just rooted in the past, but with a clear-eyed focus on the future. Beyond providing a guidepost that can hold us accountable to our visions and the success and well-being of future generations, we have demonstrated how community-oriented spaces like Karthaus can be leveraged as sites for incremental, and perhaps radical, change. At the 2024 Karthaus summer school, the majority of lecturers were women (Karthaus course information, 2024), a first in the history of the summer school. Reflections on the kind of scientific community we want glaciology to be in fifty years will continue in the form of the EDI workshop, representing one way that Karthaus will contribute to building the diverse, safe and impactful glaciological community that we see ourselves as part of fifty years from now.

Finally, we invite the reader to consider the points made in this paper and ask themselves where they want to see the glaciological community in fifty years. Above all, it is important to start and continue the conversation around EDI issues within our research community at any stage in our scientific careers.

**Acknowledgements.** The 2023 Karthaus course was sponsored by The Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Earth System Science Centre, Trewitax—GlaciersAlive, The International Glaciological Society (IGS), PROTECT (EU), Dutch Polar Climate and Cryosphere Change Consortium (NWO-NPP) and HiRISE (ENW-NWOI). Keisling acknowledges the work of the First and Second National Conferences, and particularly Randolph Bromery, Raquel Bryant and Rachel Bernard for inspiring the format and content of the EDI workshop. We thank all participants and lecturers of the 2023 Karthaus Summer School, as their engagement and interactions helped create a positive environment for meaningful discussions and reflections, which in turn influenced the development of this paper. Lawrence Bird was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Special Research Initiative (SRI) Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future (SR200100005). Maxence Menthon was supported by NWO Grant OCENW.KLEIN.243. Katherine Turner was supported by NERC funding through the University of Southampton INSPIRE DTP. Sally Wilson was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Panorama Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), under grant NE/S007458/1. The authors acknowledge a diverse range of funding sources that supported the participation of the individual co-authors in Karthaus. Gratitude is extended to the four reviewers and the scientific editor for their insightful comments and constructive feedback during the review process that greatly strengthened this article.

**Competing interests.** Three of the (co-)authors are members of the editorial board of Journal of Glaciology. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.

## References

**Ackerman A and 17 others** (2023) Know before you go: A community-derived approach to planning for and preventing sexual harassment at oceanographic field sites. *Oceanography* **36**(1), 38–43. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2023.112

**Alderson D, Clarke I, Schillereff D and Shuttleworth E** (2023) Navigating the academic ladder as an early career researcher in earth and environmental sciences. *Earth Surface Processes and Landforms* **48**(2), 475–486. doi:10.1002/esp.5497

**AlShebli BK, Rahwan T and Woon WL** (2018) The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. *Nature Communications* **9**(1), 5163. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8

**Alegria S and 19 others** (2016) *Pathways, Potholes, and the Persistence of Women in Science: Reconsidering the Pipeline*. Lanham: Lexington Books.

**Attari SZ, Krantz DH and Weber EU** (2016) Statements about climate researchers' carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. *Climatic Change* **138**(1), 325–338. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2

**Banks M and Bhandari R** (2012) Global student mobility. In Deardorff DK, de Wit H, Heyl JD and Adams T (eds), *The SAGE handbook of International Higher Education*. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 379–397. doi:10.4135/9781452218397.n21

**Beane RJ and 7 others** (2021) Uneven increases in racial diversity of US geoscience undergraduates. *Communications Earth & Environment* **2**(1), 126. doi:10.1038/s43247-021-00196-6

**Berhe AA and 6 others** (2022) Scientists from historically excluded groups face a hostile obstacle course. *Nature Geoscience* **15**(1), 2–4. doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00868-0

**Bernard RE and Cooperdock EH** (2018) No progress on diversity in 40 years. *Nature Geoscience* **11**(5), 292–295. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6

**Boon S** (2024) From crevasse falls to polar bears, train fieldwork leaders for emergencies. *Nature* **634**(8032), 10. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03155-1

**CarbonBrief** (2023) Analysis: How the diversity of IPCC authors has changed over three decades. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-diversity-of-ipcc-authors-has-changed-over-three-decades/ (accessed 3 October 2023).

**Carey M and Moulton H** (2023) Inequalities of ice loss: a framework for addressing sociocryospheric change. *Annals of Glaciology* **64**(91), 67–76. doi:10.1017/aog.2023.44

**Carnes M, Fine E and Sheridan J** (2019) Promises and pitfalls of diversity statements: Proceed with caution. *Academic Medicine* **94**(1), 20–24.

**Castilla EJ and Rho HJ** (2023) The gendering of job postings in the online recruitment process. *Management Science* **69**(11), 6912–6939.

**Cech EA** (2015) LGBT professionals' workplace experiences in STEM-related federal agencies. In *2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition*, 26–1094. doi:10.18260/p.24431

**Cech EA and Blair-Loy M** (2019) The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* **116**(10), 4182–4187. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810862116

**Cech EA and Pham MV** (2017) Queer in STEM organizations: Workplace disadvantages for LGBT employees in STEM related federal agencies. *Social Sciences* **6**(1), 12. doi:10.3390/socsci6010012

**Chaudhary VB and Berhe AA** (2020) Ten simple rules for building an antiracist lab. *PLOS Computational Biology* **16**(10), e1008210. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008210

**Chiarella D and Vurro G** (2020) Fieldwork and disability: an overview for an inclusive experience. *Geological Magazine* **157**(11), 1933–1938. doi:10.1017/S0016756820000928

**Clark JN** (2023) Disability and fieldwork: A personal reflection. *Qualitative Research* **23**(4), 1169–1177. doi:10.1177/14687941211072789

**Colgan W, Machguth H, MacFerrin M, Colgan JD, Van As D and MacGregor JA** (2016) The abandoned ice sheet base at Camp Century, Greenland, in a warming climate. *Geophysical Research Letters* **43**(15), 8091–8096. doi:10.1002/2016GL069688

**The CRiceS and PolarRES Consortia** (2024) Enhancing Polar System Representation in Models for EU Climate Decision-Making. http://www.crices-h2020.eu/about/policy-brief (accessed 2 June 2024).

**Dados N and Connell R** (2012) The global south. *Contexts* **11**(1), 12–13. doi:10.1177/1536504212436479

**Dance M, Duncan RJ, Gevers M, Honan EM, Runge E, Schalamon FR and Walch DMR** (2024) Coming in from the cold: Addressing the challenges experienced by women conducting remote polar fieldwork. *PLOS Climate* **3**(6), e0000393. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000393

**datahub.io** (2024) Country polygons as geojson. Accessed: 2025-02-18, Data licensed under the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License.

**Demery AJC and Pipkin MA** (2021) Safe fieldwork strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors and institutions. *Nature Ecology & Evolution* **5**(1), 5–9. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-01328-5
Dodds K and Nuttall M (2016) *The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic*. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Doering NN and 12 others (2022) Improving the relationships between Indigenous rights holders and researchers in the Arctic: an invitation for change in funding and collaboration. *Environmental Research Letters* 17(6), 065014. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac72b5

Else H (2018) Does Science have a bullying problem? *Nature* 563, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5

European Geosciences Union (2024) Objectives and Current Activities. https://www.egu.eu/structure/committees-and-working-groups/edi/objectives-and-current-activities/ (accessed 3 June 2024).

Fox HE and 12 others (2009) Why do we fly? Ecologists' sins of emission. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment* 7(6), 294–296. doi:10.1890/09.WB.019

Gärnter-Roer I and 7 others (2022) Democratizing glacier data—maturity of worldwide datasets and future ambitions. *Frontiers in Climate* 4, 841103. doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.841103

Gilmore RW (2021) A possible geography of light at dusk. https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/a-possible-geography-of-light-at-dusk (accessed 15 March 2024).

Gladstone J, Schipper L, Hara-Msulira T and Casci T (2023) Equity and inclusivity in research funding: Barriers and delivering change. Report, University of Oxford.

Grémillet D (2008) Paradox of flying to meetings to protect the environment. *Nature* 455(7217), 1175. doi:10.1038/4551175a

Haug S, Braveboy-Wagner J and Maihold G (2021) The ‘Global South’ in the study of world politics: Examining a meta category. *Third World Quarterly* 42(9), 1923–1944. doi:10.1080/01436597.2021.1948831

Heath AJ, Carlsson M and Agerström J (2023) What adds to job ads? The impact of equality and diversity information on organizational attraction in minority and majority ethnic groups. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology* 96, 872–896.

Helmers E, Chang CC and Dauwels J (2021) Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I—objective comparison by standardized metrics. *Environmental Sciences Europe* 33(1), 30. doi:10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6

Hill A, Jacquemart M, Gold A and Tiampo K (2021) Changing the culture of fieldwork in the geosciences. *Eos* 102. doi:10.1029/2021EO158013

Hulbe CL, Wang W and Ommanney S (2010) Women in glaciology, a historical perspective. *Journal of Glaciology* 56(200), 944–964. doi:10.3189/002214311796406202

Huntington HP and 9 others (2019) Climate change in context: putting people first in the Arctic. *Regional Environmental Change* 19, 1217–1223. doi:10.1007/s10113-019-01478-8

IACS (2023) IACS Membership statistics. https://cryosphericsciences.org/members/membership/#iacs_stats (accessed 26 September 2023).

IGS (2023) International Glaciological Society (IGS) Ad-hoc Committee—Actions on Diversity & Inclusivity Report to Council. https://www.igsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ADIReportwithCoverLetter.pdf (accessed 26 September 2023).

IPCC (2023) *Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*. [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001

Johannesen E and 9 others (2022) The sea change needed for gender equality in ocean-going research. *Marine Technology Society Journal* 56(3), 18–24. doi:10.4031/MTS.56.3.6

John CM and Khan SB (2018) Mental health in the field. *Nature Geoscience* 11, 618–620. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0219-0

Karplus MS and 16 others (2022) Strategies to build a positive and inclusive Antarctic field work environment. *Annals of Glaciology* 63(87–89), 125–131. doi:10.1017/aog.2023.32

Karthaus course information (2024) Ice and Climate Karthaus course: Course information. https://www.projectscience.uu.nl/iceclimate/karthaus/information.php (accessed 5 May 2024).

Klymiuk AA (2021) Addressing unconscious coloniality and decolonizing practice in geoscience. *Nature Reviews Earth & Environment* 2, 745–746 doi:10.1038/s43017-00235-y

Koenig L, Hulbe C, Bell R and Lampkin D (2016) Gender diversity in cryosphere science and awards. *Eos* 97, doi:10.1029/2016EO049577

Langin K (2019) Climate scientists say no to flying. *Science* 364, 621–621. doi:10.1126/science.364.6441.621

Laptander R and 9 others (2024) Critical seasonal conditions in the reindeer-herding year: A synopsis of factors and events in Fennoscandia and northwestern Russia. *Polar Science* 39, 101016. doi:10.1016/j.polar.2023.101016

Lewis MW and Wigen K (1997) *The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography*, Univ of California Press.

Liboiron M (2021) Decolonizing geoscience requires more than equity and inclusion. *Nature Geoscience* 14(12), 876–877. doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00861-7

Lininger KB and 6 others (2021) Perspectives on being a field-based geomorphologist during pregnancy and early motherhood. *Earth Surface Processes and Landforms* 46(14), 2767–2772. doi:10.1002/esp.5238

MacDonell S and 9 others (2022) Snow and ice in the desert: reflections from a decade of connecting cryospheric science with communities in the semiarid Chilean Andes. *Annals of Glaciology* 63(87–89), 158–164. doi:10.1017/aog.2023.51

Maguire S (1998) Gender Differences in Attitudes to Undergraduate Fieldwork. *Area* 30(3), 207–214.

Mahmoudi M (2023) Academic bullying slows the evolution of science. *Nature Reviews Materials* 8(5), 301–303. doi:10.1038/s41578-00549-x

Mahoney AR and 13 others (2021) Thin ice, deep snow and surface flooding in Kotzebue Sound: landfast ice mass balance during two anomalously warm winters and implications for marine mammals and subsistence hunting. *Journal of Glaciology* 67(266), 1013–1027. doi:10.1017/jog.2021.49

Mariette J and 15 others (2022) An open-source tool to assess the carbon footprint of research. *Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability* 2(3), 035008. doi:10.1088/2634-4505/ac84a4

Marin-Spiotta E and 6 others (2020) Hostile climates are barriers to diversifying the geosciences. *Advances in Geosciences* 53, 117–127. doi:10.5194/adgeo-53-117-2020

Mercer H and Simpson T (2023) Imperialism, colonialism, and climate change science. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change*, e851. doi:10.1002/wcc.851

Morgan AC, Way SF, Hoefer MJ, Larremore DB, Galesic M and Clauset A (2021) The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. *Science Advances* 7, eabd1996. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd1996

Moss S (2018) Research is set up for bullies to thrive. *Nature*. doi:10.1038/d41586-06040-w

Mudaly R and T Chirikure (2023) STEM education in the Global North and Global South: competition, conformity, and convenient collaborations. In *Frontiers in Education* 8, Frontiers Media SA, p.1144399. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1144399

Nash M (2021) National Antarctic Program responses to fieldwork sexual harassment. *Antarctic Science* 33(5), 560–571. doi:10.1017/S0954102021000432

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) *The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM.*, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25568

National Himalayan Cryospheric Research Lab University of Kashmir (2023) 3-week capacity building program in glaciology. http://hrluok.edu.in/Main/Message.aspx?Type=Alert&Alert=a0b4ca7b-9e8a-46fa-840fed96c53899d4 (accessed 3 October 2023).

Nielsen H and Nielsen KH (2016) Camp century—cold war city under the ice, Exploring Greenland: Cold war Science and Technology on ice, 195–216. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59688-8_9

Nielsen MW (2016) Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes. *Science and Public Policy* 43(3), 386–399.

Nielsen MW and 9 others (2017) Gender diversity leads to better science. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 114(8), 1740–1742. doi:10.1073/pnas.1700616114

NSF, OPP and USAP (2022) Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and Response (SAHPR)—Final Report. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report.pdf (accessed 3 June 2024).
Page SE (2019) *The Diversity bonus: How Great Teams pay off in The Knowledge economy*, Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77c0h

Pagel H, Ranke K, Hempel F Köhler J (2014) The Use of the Concept “Global South” in Social Science & Humanities. https://www.academia.edu/7917466/The_Use_of_the_Concept.Global_South_in_Social_Science_and_Humanities (accessed 4 June 2024).

Patrick S Huggins A (2023) The Term ‘Global South’ Is Surging. It Should Be Retired. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/08/15/term-global-south-is-surging.-it-should-be-retired-pub-90376 (accessed 4 June 2024).

Pellegrino A (2001) Trends in Latin American skilled migration: “brain drain” or “brain exchange”? *International migration* 39(5), 111–132. doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00174

Popp AL, Lutz SR, Khatami S, van Emmerik TH and Knoben WJ (2019) A global survey on the perceptions and impacts of gender inequality in the earth and space sciences. *Earth and Space Science* 6(8), 1460–1468. doi:10.1029/2019EA000706

Ranganathan M and 6 others (2021) Trends in the representation of women among us geoscience faculty from 1999 to 2020: The long road toward gender parity. *AGU Advances* 2(3), e2021AV000436. doi:10.1029/2021AV000436

Resmini M (2016) The ‘leaky pipeline’. *Chemistry-A European Journal* 22(11), 3533–3534. doi:10.1002/chem.201600292

Robel AA, Ultee L, Ranganathan M and Nash M (2024) For whom and by whom is glaciology? *Journal of Glaciology* 70, e68, 1–11. doi:10.1017/jog.2024.29

Rockinson-Szapkiw A, Wendt JL and Stephen JS (2021) The efficacy of a blended peer mentoring experience for racial and ethnic minority women in STEM pilot study: Academic, professional, and psychosocial outcomes for mentors and mentees. *Journal for STEM Education Research*, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s41979-020-00048-6

Rowan A, Olund E and Pickerill J (2022) *University of Sheffield Department of Geography Policy on equality, Diversity and Inclusion for Field Classes*. doi:10.31223/X5G349

Schiebinger L and Gilmartin SK (2010) Housework is an academic issue. *Academe* 96(1), 39–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20694619 (accessed 3 June 2024).

Scully T (2011) The Development of the Antarctic Treaty System. *Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces*, 29–38. doi:10.5479/si.9781935623069.29

Shafer G, Viskuptic K and Egger AE (2022) Analysis of skills sought by employers of bachelors-level geoscientists. *GSA Today* 32, 34–35. doi:10.1130/gsatg510gw.1

Sjöberg Y, Gomach S, Kwiatkowski E and Mansoz M (2018) Involvement of local Indigenous peoples in Arctic research—expectations, needs and challenges perceived by early career researchers. *Arctic Science* 5(1), 27–53. doi:10.1139/as-2017-0045

Spinellis D and Louridas P (2013) The carbon footprint of conference papers. *PLOS ONE* 8(6), 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066508

Stadnyk T (2024) Overstaying our welcome: On the rise of women's seniority in the academy. *Hydrological Processes* 38(5), e15166. doi:10.1002/hyp.15166

Stevens A (2020) The climate issue. *Nature Astronomy* 4(9), 811. doi:10.1038/s41550-01216

Stokes A, Feig AD, Atchison CL and Gilley B (2019) Making geoscience field-work inclusive and accessible for students with disabilities. *Geosphere* 15(6), 1809–1825. doi:10.1130/GES02006.1

Talavera-Soza S (2023) Citizenship a determining factor in a geoscientist's career. *Nature Geoscience* 16(7), 550–551. doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01221-3

Thompson E (2011) Making our actions consistent with our scientific predictions. *Weather* 66(7), 195–195. doi:10.1002/wea.817

Tooth S and Viles HA (2021) Equality, diversity, inclusion: ensuring a resilient future for geomorphology. *Earth Surface Processes and Landforms* 46(1), 5–11. doi:10.1002/esp.5026

UIS UNESCO (2024) Women in Science. https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/women-science (accessed 25 October 2024).

UK Government (2010) Equality Act 2010: UK Public General Acts, 2010 c. 15, Part 2, Chapter 1 (accessed 16 January 2025).

Universidad de Magallanes Chile (2023) Patagonian icefields research program education, science and community. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VbdP-Er39bCgVOAiBi6-03-ZnRfvLupG/view (accessed 3 October 2023).

US Census (2024) United States Census Quick Facts Table. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RH1825223 (accessed 25 October 2024).

Van Scherpenberg C, Bultema L, Jahn A, Löffler M, Minneker V and Lasser J (2021) Manifestations of power abuse in academia and how to prevent them. *Elephant in the Lab*. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4580544

Wickware P (1997) Along the leaky pipeline. *Nature* 390(6656), 202–203. doi:10.1038/36639

Witze A (2020) Three extraordinary women run the gauntlet of science—a documentary. *Nature* 583, 25–26. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01912-6

WMO (2022) Project partners of the Global Cryosphere Watch. https://globalcryospherewatch.org/about/partners.html (accessed 3 June 2024).

Zeidan R, de Almeida SL, Bó I and Lewis N (2024) Racial and income-based affirmative action in higher education admissions: lessons from the Brazilian experience. *Journal of Economic Surveys* 38(3), 956–972.

Zhu J, Liao Z, Yam KC and Johnson RE (2018) Shared leadership: a state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. *Journal of Organizational Behavior* 39(7), 834–852.

## Appendix A. Original submissions to the time capsule

Please find Tables A1 and A2 that contain the original submissions to the time capsule.

## Appendix B. Overview on existing resources

Table B1 provides an overview of (i) proposed actions to address identified challenges and (ii) related resources and projects that already foster EDI in our research community. Publications that are mentioned within the table are listed in the reference list (John and Khan, 2018; Sjöberg and others, 2018; Chiarella and Vurro, 2020; Demery and Pipkin, 2021; Hill and others, 2021; Doering and others, 2022; Mariette and others, 2022; Rowan and others, 2022; Ackerman and others, 2023). Last access to all webpages: January 30, 2025.
<table><caption>**Table A1.** Original submissions to the time capsule in the form of notecards. The contents of the individual cards are verbatim</caption><thead><tr><th>Card</th><th>Content</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Gender balance will be much better (much more female glaciologists than in '23); Glaciology will be carbon-neutral (fieldwork, facilities, computer power, ...); New technologies how to rescue and keep "endangered" glaciers (though many alpine glacier will be gone)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Zero unwanted behaviors in and out field work (cf. terrible results of NSF survey from Antarctica in 2022); Better, more fair, distribution(?) of the carbon footprint of different parts of academia (between ECS and professors); And as low carbon footprint as possible for everyone</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>A world-wide balanced male/female/non-binary/... representation in professors)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>True gender balance (50/50) throughout all career stages; no leaky pipelines anymore</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Sexual harassment and assault is an anomaly rather than the norm</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Open access to data and codes; more ethical, racial and cultural diversity; ice-sheet modeling community in South America</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Carbon footprint of glaciologists will be negative; unfortunately 70% of the alpine glacier mass will be lost, resulting in a much higher glaciologist to glacier mass ratio</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>A diverse pool of glaciologists at all levels of institutions from PhDs to professors</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>I hope Indigenous knowledge will be well respected and that some PIs working on Greenland will have grown up there</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>We'll be fixed about potential catastrophic sea-level rise</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Better understanding of fractures; Fully coupled models (that don't take ages to run)</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>In 50 years, I envision that the global ice-sheet modelling glaciology community consists of 50% people from the global south; —Strategy: GS² summer school (see poster); I wish that in 50 years care work is less of an obstacle for a "career" in glaciology/science in general; by care work I mean caring not only for children, but also for parents, mentally ill family members and/or friends etc.; —Strategy: flexible solutions for caretakers to join conferences, summer schools, field trips ...; provide child care at conferences, summer schools etc. + funding for alternative care taking</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>More community involvement with citizen science; research into glacier protection/restoration with minimal interferences</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Balanced genders at all levels (PhD, postdocs, professors, ...); transdisciplinary research with project partners also in the global south; fostered exchange with neighboring research areas; more open (non-exclusive) community → not dominantly white "western" anymore; more sustainable research → flying?! cruises?! → lots of emissions; being "heard" by politicians → direct transfer of findings for mitigation solution finding</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table A2.** Table A1 continued. Original submissions to the time capsule in the form of notecards. The contents of the individual cards are verbatim</caption><thead><tr><th>Card</th><th>Content</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15</td><td>In 50 years, the world could be dramatically different as it is today. I am really pessimistic about political changes and the behavior of the human being in general.; My only hope is that future generations (our children and children's children) would be conscious about how one little action could make a big difference. With respect to glaciology, I think that in 50 years the advancement in technology will help to establish now major discoveries and future climate change accelerates → it could bring together other disciplines of science in collaboration; as an example, the melting of permafrost could lead to a release of viruses unknown for humans. This could give path to collaborations between glaciologists and virologists. In 2073 life on Earth could be in a tipping point for our own existence as a species, but glaciologists and scientists in general could help to avoid that. But there is a need of a regular receptor in any communication system and on the top of this world's chain are politicians. We will need more scientists (women, young, old, etc.) in governments to have an influence.</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Participants, lecturers and contributions in discussions at the summer schools are independent of gender, race and other dimensions of discrimination; The whole field of cryospheric science becomes more diverse and scientists from the global south are seen equally well</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Inclusion of diverse groups in glaciological community; strategy-making in science & more emphasis on linking glaciological inferences with climate policies / governance; more research activities in Canadian Arctic wrt Indigenous communities; justice in climate & glaciological community wrt woman in glaciological field works</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>In 50 years, I hope we have a more open community, in which discrimination, equity and "Global North" and "South" are not necessary topics anymore but indeed a common mindset of positivity, inclusivity and general open-mindness exists. Whether it be in social topics or open-data policies; Science shall work as a common collective knowledge and not in competition and should be made easily digestible and available to everyone.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table B1.** Overview of proposed actions and present-day examples. **Legend:** Who has the agency to implement those changes? The individual ✝, Institutions 👥, Funding agencies 🏠</caption><thead><tr><th>Issue</th><th>Action proposed</th><th>Present-day examples of dedicated initiatives</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EDI in glaciology</td><td><strong>Cryocommunity</strong> aims to promote EDI in the cryospheric sciences (https://cryocommunity.org/)<br/><strong>Pride in Polar Research</strong> brings together and supports queer professionals in polar sciences (https://www.prideinpolarresearch.com/)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ethnic and cultural diversity</td><td>Review advertisement content, ask for or provide EDI statements if possible (*, 👥)<br/><br/>Provide and enhance mentorship opportunities (*, 👥)</td><td><strong>Unlearning Racism in Geosciences (URGE)</strong> provides community-wide journal-reading and policy-design curriculum aiming to support Geoscientists in dismantling racism and advancing accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (https://urgeoscience.org/)<br/><br/><strong>National Association of Black Geoscientists (NABG)</strong> (https://www.americangeosciences.org/society/national-association-black-geoscientists)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>Table B1. (Continued.)</caption><thead><tr><th>Issue</th><th>Action proposed</th><th>Present-day examples of dedicated initiatives</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>North-South divide in the research community</td><td>Invite a diverse set of collaborators for research visits (<sup>*, 1</sup>)<br>Support long-term stability of training schools in the Global South (<sup>*, 1</sup>)<br>Increase the number of Global South affiliated institutions at the Karthaus summer school (<sup>*, 1</sup>)<br>Strengthen ties between different glaciological communities (<sup>*, 2</sup>)<br>Sponsor cross-national research projects (<sup>1</sup>)</td><td><strong>Polar Impact</strong>, a 'network of racial & ethnic minorities and allies in the polar research community' (https://www.polarimpactnetwork.org/)<br><strong>Geolatinas</strong> aim to empower Latin women in Geoscience (https://geolatinas.org/)<br><strong>Society for the Advancements of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans</strong> in Science (https://www.sacnas.org/)</td></tr><tr><td>Gender balance</td><td>Provide and enhance mentorship opportunities (<sup>*, 1</sup>)<br>Parental leave and flexible working hours (<sup>2</sup>)<br>Review recruitment procedures to improve gender balance in your team or department (<sup>*, 2</sup>)<br>Reduce the number of short-term contracts (<sup>1</sup>, <sup>2</sup>)<br>More transparency and clarity on salary scales, promotion criteria, and decision-making (<sup>2</sup>)</td><td><strong>Inspiring Girls Expeditions</strong> organizes expeditions or small trips for high-school girls, (https://www.inspiringgirls.org/)<br><strong>500 Women Scientists</strong> (https://500womenscientists.org/)<br><strong>Women in Polar Science</strong> (https://womeninpolarscience.org/)<br><strong>"Gender is not plan B"</strong>, run by the "Women of the Arctic", a non-profit association that wants to raise awareness on women's and gender-related issues in the Arctic (http://wwwunj.org/planb.com)<br><strong>Women in the Arctic and Antarctic</strong> promote the views, work, and voices of women researching, representing, experiencing and living in the North and the Polar Regions (https://womeninthearcticandantarctic.ca)<br><strong>Childcare service at EGU</strong> (https://www.egu24.eu/attend/childcare_service.html)</td></tr><tr><td>Care work (i.e. career cutbacks due to carework responsibilities)</td><td>Childcare options or funding for alternative caretakers for summer schools and conferences (<sup>*, 1</sup>)</td><td><strong>Stipend</strong> by the Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard-Stiftung for young women with children (Doctoral/PostDoc level in Germany, https://cnv-stiftung.de/en/goals)<br><strong>INTERACT Practical Field Guide</strong> (https://apecs.is/research/fieldwork-planning/3466-interact-practical-field-guide.html)</td></tr><tr><td>Improve fieldwork conditions (i.e. incidents of sexual harassment or assault on fieldwork)</td><td>Provide safety training, increase knowledge on the glaciological code of conduct and being an active bystander (<sup>*, 1</sup>)<br>Report and penalize incidents of harassment during fieldwork (<sup>*, 1</sup>)</td><td><strong>ADVANCEing FieldSafety Online Course (MOOC)</strong> (https://fieldsafe.colorado.edu/course-overview)<br><strong>Safe fieldwork strategies</strong> for at-risk individuals, their supervisors, and institutions (Demery and Pipkin, 2021)<br><strong>Recommendations for planning for and preventing sexual harassment at oceanographic field sites</strong> & (Ackerman and others, 2023)<br><strong>University of Sheffield Department of Geography Policy</strong> on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion for field classes (Rowan and others, 2022)<br><strong>Risk management workshop for field scientists</strong> (Hill and others, 2021)<br><strong>Mental health in the field</strong> cf. John and Khan, 2018<br><strong>Fieldwork and disability</strong> cf. Chiarella and Vurro, 2020<br><strong>Gear sharing and discount programs</strong> see, for example, https://cryocommunity.org/projects/new-gear-sharing-program or https://psecco.org/psecco-pro-deal-program<br><strong>Active bystander training</strong> by the British Antarctic Survey provided for their employees (https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/working-for-bas/our-cultural-values-equality-and-diversity/)<br><strong>PhD-specific best practices in recruitment advice</strong> by SENSE, the Centre for Satellite Data in Environmental Science (https://eo-cdt.org/edi/recruitment-best-practices/)<br><strong>Greenland Rising</strong> (https://pgg.ldeo.columbia.edu/projects/greenland-rising)<br><strong>Climate Narratives</strong> (https://climatenarratives.w.uib.no/)<br><strong>Canadian guide for research involving Indigenous Peoples and communities</strong> (https://www.nserc-crsg.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/policies-politiques/Indigenous-Autochtones_eng.asp)<br><strong>Involvement of local Indigenous peoples in Arctic research</strong> — expectations, needs and challenges (Sjöberg and others, 2018)<br><strong>Improving the relationships between Indigenous rights holders and researchers in the Arctic</strong>: an invitation for change in funding and collaboration (Doering and others, 2022)</td></tr><tr><td>A more respectful working environment</td><td>Conduct surveys on working culture (<sup>2</sup>)<br>Provide allyship training (<sup>2</sup>)<br>Provide mentorship (<sup>1</sup>)<br>Call out and strike down hostile behaviour (<sup>1</sup>)<br>Follow existing guidelines (<sup>1</sup>)<br>Support local initiatives (<sup>*, 1</sup>, <sup>2</sup>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Collaboration with local/indigenous us communities</td><td>Acknowledge fairly Indigenous contribution to scientific work (<sup>1</sup>)<br>Include local communities in research when on fieldwork (<sup>1</sup>)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table B1. (Continued.)**</caption><thead><tr><td>Issue</td><td>Action proposed</td><td>Present-day examples of dedicated initiatives</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Climate policy impact</td><td>Improve science communication and outreach i.e. making our research more understandable and available for the public and policy makers (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>International Cryosphere and Climate Initiative (https://iccinet.org/)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Carbon footprint of glaciological research</td><td>Provide dedicated training (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>Policy brief by EU research project PolarRES and CRiceS (https://www.crices-h2020.eu/about/policy-briefs)</td></tr><tr><td>Establish connections and work together with local communities (<sup>3</sup>, <sup>4</sup>)</td><td>Policy brief by EU project TiPACCs (https://www tipaccs.eu/antarcticpolicybrief2024/)</td></tr><tr><td>Limit impact by closely evaluating the necessity of carbon emissions (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>GES210 1 point 5, an open-source web application to assess the carbon footprint of research, cf. Mariette et al. 2022 (https://apps.labos1point5.org/ges-1point5)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Open access science</td><td>Provide estimates on CO2 emissions by research to know impact (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>British Antarctic Survey Carbon Footprint 2023-2024 report (https://www.bas.ac.uk/science/science-and-innovation/towards-net-zero-fit-for-the-future/bas-carbon-emissions/)</td></tr><tr><td>Mandate CO2 emission offsetting for fieldwork and business trips by providing dedicated funds (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>Example for PhD Scholarship foundation's strategy to fund sustainable travel (https://www.studienstiftung.de/nachhaltigkeit)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Collaborative projects and summer schools</td><td>Make software and hardware equipment open access (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>Journal of Glaciology (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology)</td></tr><tr><td>Provide training to use open access services (<sup>3</sup>, <sup>4</sup>)</td><td>Annals of Glaciology (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology)</td></tr><tr><td>Offer dedicated scholarships or include funding for open-access practices and outreach (<sup>3</sup>)</td><td>The Cryosphere (https://www.the-cryosphere.net/) Funding support from GMD Journal (https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/abou%20t/financial_support.html)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>CryoCloud, a JupyterHub built for NASA Cryosphere communities (https://cryointhecloud.com/)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>OGGM training (https://oggm.org/2023/01/27/training-announcement/)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Open-source ice-sheet model PISM (https://www.pism.io/)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6"></td><td rowspan="6"></td><td>Workflow and code sharing platform the Ghub (https://theghub.org)</td></tr><tr><td>Global Cryosphere Watch (https://wmo.int/activities/global-cryosphere-watch-gcw)</td></tr><tr><td>ISMIP6 (https://climate-cryosphere.org/about-ismip6/)</td></tr><tr><td>GlacierMIP (https://climate-cryosphere.org/glaciermip/)</td></tr><tr><td>IMBIE (http://imbie.org/)</td></tr><tr><td>International Summer School in Glaciology in McCarthy, Alaska (https://glacierschool.alaska.edu/)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td>Juneau Icefield Research Program (https://juneauicefield.org/)</td></tr><tr><td>Glaciologia de los Andes del Sur, (https://www.mendoza.conicet.gov.ar/glaciologia-de-los-andes-del-sur/)</td></tr></tbody></table>