Reflecting on the legacy of our early polar explorers

By Ella Wood (PhD student, University of St Andrews) 

Scotland has a long and proud history of glaciology and polar research, punching far beyond its weight in the international research community. This perhaps stems from our love as a nation for our mountains and a somewhat wild determination to embrace the outdoors - whatever the weather!   

Sir Ernest Shackleton, one of the defining figures of early polar exploration was a member of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and in 1902, Scotland sent its own National Expedition to Antarctica led by William Speirs Bruce. Perhaps less well known, is Isobel Wylie Hutchison, an explorer, filmmaker and botanist from West Lothian who was the first woman to receive the Mungo Park Medal for exploration from the RSGS in 1934. The image of these early polar expeditions is one of heroism, strength and risk envisioned in wild, isolated landscapes of snow and ice.   

​​​Modern glaciology plays a very different public role than it did a century ago, as polar and high mountain regions are central to conversations around climate change and social justice. The melt of the Antarctic and Greenlandic ice sheets has global implications through sea level rise and changes in mountain glaciers have cascading economic, social and political impacts as they affect water availability across some of the most densely populated regions of the world. Polar and mountain regions are also critical in discussions of defence, resource extraction and sovereignty. We see this in Trump’s outlandish claims over Greenland and Russia and China eying up opportunities for resource extraction and polar shipping routes as the ice melts in the Arctic. 

Research into the cryosphere is more important than ever in our interconnected world, however the context and motivations differ significantly​​ than the aims and outlook of our early polar heroes. Their legacy, while foundational, also reinforces a specific vision of science: one rooted in masculine ideals of conquest, isolation, and objectivity. We can see evidence of how such norms continue to influence glaciology, particularly through the lens of gender.  

A survey by the British Antarctic Survey estimated that women make up 39% of polar researchers in the UK, but this falls significantly with career stage. Notably, Scotland is yet to have its first female glaciology professor. An academic paper published by Carey et al. in 2016 sparked debate as it coined the term ‘feminist glaciology’, digging into the question of how gender has shaped glacier science. ​​The paper highlighted how gender (and aspects of social ​​identity from ethnicity, sexuality, education and social background) influence issues of power, justice and inequality that ultimately affect the way scientific knowledge is produced and whose voices are considered credible.  

It is not only about the opportunities offered to individuals but also how institutions, funding structures and research practices often have an implicitly gendered aspect. ​​Even in natural science fields which are often perceived as ‘objective’, gender stills play a role in ​​research motivations and funding, which underpin the questions we ask and the way scientific findings and theory are adopted and implemented by others.  Gender based inequalities are often exacerbated in polar or glacial contexts, which are rooted in masculinist legacies of heroic individualism, colonisation and risk. 

​​​Historically, we find numerous examples where the success of an individual scientist and the subsequent popularity and adoption of their scientific theories has been tied to their reputation as mountaineers or explorers. This interlinking of scientific credibility and exploration is still common today. Many research awards and funds reward expeditions with exploratory and scientific aims, blurring the line between these two elements. Expeditions to remote locations can have scientific value, along with the added benefit of producing beautiful photos and an exciting narrative. However, we may question whether they are scientifically (or financially) the most effective places to conduct research.  

This intermingling of scientific and exploratory goals is something that is amplified by the media, which often picks up on stories of personal hardship in the pursuit of research. Whilst there are many incredible women involved in these types of projects, there is an underlying masculine narrative to this type of research, which may be a barrier to the participation of underrepresented groups. This legacy can also result in the higher scientific valuation of more ‘extreme’ research projects compared to lower stakes, localised, community and policy orientated research. 

Women disproportionally face barriers to fieldwork participation including a higher likelihood of caregiving responsibilities and perceptions of physical strength deemed necessary for certain types of work. It was only in 1996 that the British Antarctic Survey removed all gender-based fieldwork restrictions, contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), from which they were granted an exemption. When working in the field women can face additional practical challenges related to hygiene and safety, yet it is still relatively rare that gendered issues are openly discussed and integrated into project planning.  

Even after overcoming these obstacles, women are likely to face further scrutiny in the way their knowledge, expertise and research practices are received by colleagues, the media and local communities. My own experience as a female PhD researcher working in Central Asia has highlighted some of the challenges that come with being (sometimes the only) woman in a male-dominated team or research group. In addition to navigating practical concerns around safety and cultural differences in how women engage in fieldwork, I’ve had to reaffirm my physical, technical, and scientific credibility, sometimes making me question my own abilities and right to be there. 

We have come a long way in the last few decades, with many women working in glaciology, particularly at the early career stage, which paints an optimistic picture for the future. However, representation in fieldwork, at the later career stages and in teaching and leadership positions is comparatively low​​. Many of the factors contributing to this pattern are not unique to glaciology, such as the lack of flexibility in working arrangements, job precarity, and the unequal distribution of invisible labour (like mentoring, admin and outreach). However, the structural culture of glaciology - especially its strong association with field-based research and historically male-dominated environments - may exacerbate these inequalities. At senior levels, the lack of diversity can create isolating or exclusionary professional cultures that reinforce existing biases, both in hiring and promotion.  

Our early polar research heroes broke scientific boundaries and changed the way we understand the world today, and we can be proud of this legacy. However, it is important to recognise that their achievements were often enabled by privilege, and that these legacies of risk and strength are no longer a necessary hallmark of pioneering research. Today, amazing work is being done to increase diversity in polar research. Programmes such as Girls on Ice and the Scottish-based Polar Academy are engaging young people from a diverse range of backgrounds with polar science. Yet, the promotion of ​​gender equality and diversity must go beyond youth participation and needs to be embedded at every level.  

Even small shifts in research culture can make a big difference, with openness to discussion and communication being key. It is also important that the responsibility for driving change does not fall solely on those who already face the greatest barriers. It is easy to overlook issues of gender equitability in a context of squeezed research funding and increasing workloads, however, this ultimately impacts the science we produce. Whilst we see an increasing backlash against diversity programmes internationally, it is important that in Scotland we step up to this challenge. We need to continue to establish a forward-looking research culture that supports equity and enables scientists from different backgrounds to conduct world leading research. 

Glaciology is for everyone. Rather than being driven by notions of endurance, risk-taking and heroism, we need to envision modern glaciology as grounded in teamwork, critical thinking, resilience and positivity in the face of global challenges. 

Carey, M., Jackson, M., Antonello, A. and Rushing, J. (2016). Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research. Progress in Human Geography, 40(6), pp.770–793.