Challenges: How did the COVID-19 pandemic disrupt the geosciences?

The pandemic caused substantial disruptions across the geoscience profession, affecting operations in academic departments, geoscience employers, academic research, instruction, work activities of geoscientists, and general work and learning environments. Academic departments faced challenges such as budget cuts, staffing impacts, limitations on fieldwork and travel, declines in enrollments and degrees, and student recruitment. The pandemic severely disrupted academic research activities for faculty and students, leading to deferrals, cancellations, and changes in research methodologies. This disruption resulted in a significant shift towards virtual or computational research and literature reviews.

Instruction in academia was heavily impacted as the switch from in-person to entirely remote instruction occurred quickly, followed by subsequent waves of in-person, hybrid, and virtual instruction based on the intensity of pandemic activity. Students' progress towards degree completion was hindered by delays in project tasks, changes in research project design, cancellation or unavailability of required courses, and modifications to the final presentation mode for theses, dissertations, and capstone projects.

Geoscience employers faced challenges ranging from decreased financial performance and staffing impacts to regulatory restrictions and supply chain issues. There were also limitations on travel, field activities, and facility access. Hiring new talent and onboarding new employees into virtual working environments presented substantial obstacles, and employers noted skills and knowledge gaps in hires made during the pandemic era.

Work and research activities in the geoscience profession were affected by impacts on fieldwork and laboratory activities, hindered by facility and travel restrictions as well as increased health and safety protocols. The shift to remote learning and working had further impacts on families with children, as the increase in caregiving and domestic responsibilities affected the productivity of academic faculty and non-academic geoscientists. The rapid changes in response to the pandemic and the continued remote work and learning environments came with their challenges, such as impacts on productivity, lack of in-person interactions, workflow delays, decreased work/life balance, and supply shortages. In addition, most study participants noted pandemic-related concerns focused on workplace safety. For new graduates and students, additional top concerns included job security, employment availability, and financial worries.

Pandemic impacts on academic departments

Between 2020 and 2023, academic department budgets generally stabilized. The number of departments experiencing budget cuts decreased substantially, falling from over half of departments reporting budget decreases in 2020–2021 to less than one-fifth in 2022–2023 academic years. Conversely, departments reporting no change in their budgets increased from one-third to over three-quarters over the same period. Notably, the peak in departments reporting budget increases occurred in 2021–2022 at 13%, before returning to 6% in the 2022–2023 academic year.

A large part of the university budget that disappeared because the tuition was not coming in has been augmented by federal grants. One of the things that has changed has been an increasing emphasis from the administration on getting grants for everything at every level.

–academic faculty

There was no big change in the core budget. Special money appeared to help us facilitate some of the face-to-face stuff that we still had to do.

–academic faculty

Even though our state budget has shrunk, which reflects our majors going down too, and our general enrollment gradually going down in the last five or six years, it feels like our needs are met because of the generous donors and the CARES money.

–academic faculty

Staffing and travel impacts

Impacts to departmental staffing were most prevalent during Summer 2020, when many departments reduced benefits or salaries, laid off staff, and reduced work hours or furloughed staff. Hiring freezes peaked during Summer 2021, with just under a fifth of departments reporting the impact. By the start of Fall 2021, over half of departments reported no staffing impacts, and by December 2022 staffing impacts were reported only by a small percentage of departments. Hiring activity surged in late spring 2021, peaking at just over 30% of departments reporting actively hiring faculty and staff in May 2022 and decreasing to 15% of departments by December 2022.

The pandemic impacted faculty travel and fieldwork policies from 2020 to 2022. The proportion of departments prohibiting travel decreased from two-thirds to just under a quarter over the period as restrictions eased and vaccines were made available. Notably, governmental prohibitions on travel were limited, and institutional prohibitions declined sharply by Summer 2021, while personal decisions by faculty to not travel or conduct fieldwork continued throughout the rest of the period.

Recruitment, enrollments, and degrees

Student recruitment strategies were modified by just over half of departments for the Fall 2021 term. Modifications included implementation of virtual events (23%) and innovative methods (32%), such as diversity, equity, and inclusion activities, hybrid classes, smaller class sizes, and earlier admission decisions. Traditional approaches, such as in-person recruiting at conferences and social media usage, were utilized by a small number of departments (3% each).

A decline in geoscience enrollments was reported by most departments during the 2020–2021 academic year relative to the 2019-2020 academic year, rising to two-thirds of departments in 2021–2022. Departments reporting stable enrollments decreased from 40% to 17%, and concurrently in the 2021–2022 academic year, just under a fifth of departments reported an increase in enrollments compared to 2019–2020.

Between the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 academic years, there was an increase in the percentage of departments reporting lower enrollments for introductory geoscience courses and labs, geoscience major enrollments, and institution-wide enrollments compared to pre-pandemic years. Departments noting lower institution-wide enrollments rose from 46% to 59%, while those reporting lower enrollments for introductory courses and labs increased from 15% to 50% and 19% to 36%, respectively. Departments reporting lower enrollments in the geoscience major category saw a considerable increase from 15% to 55%. For enrollments during the Summer 2021 term, most departments reported similar enrollments to pre-pandemic summer terms, while just over one-third reported lower enrollments.

We saw a big drop in enrollment. I want to say enrollment went down over the last couple of years by 10 or 20%, so a significant drop in enrollment. Now we had seen a gradual drop in enrollment over the last decade, but this was like going off a cliff. I feel like at least the numbers for Fall 2022 that we have seen look like things are leveling off.

–academic faculty

We really took an enrollment hit. It was not in Fall of 2020 when we took that enrollment hit. You would think that would be the one where people would be holding off thinking: “Well online learning in Spring of 20 was so hard. I am going to wait till the pandemic's over.” No, in the 2020–2021 academic year, our enrollments were close to what they were pre-pandemic, but we saw a big enrollment drop starting in Fall of 2021. We thought we were going to see more people come back because it was more face-to-face, but the enrollments were lower.

–academic faculty

Here's the challenge that COVID did for community colleges is that when COVID hit, our numbers of students declined, and then that affects the number of sections, and then that affects the number of classes you can give to your contract tenured faculty, which means that they were taking the classes from part-timers left and right. So, you had part timers who didn't have a job for up to two years, because those classes were given to fulfill the contract-based loads of faculty members and the overloads of full-time faculty members. So naturally, these people need to find jobs, and they're looking for jobs that are now full time and require them to work the hours that they would have been teaching, or that the salary is significantly better, so they don't need to come back and teach. So now we need to find a new pool of geology instructors coming right out of college. So, it's kind of this major trickle-down effect in terms of staffing and schooling and everything else.

–academic department

Regarding degrees, in the 2020–2021 academic year, most departments reported no change in the number of degrees awarded compared to the 2019–2020 academic year. However, in the 2021–2022 academic year, there was a sharp increase from one-quarter to just over one-half of departments noting the decline, as the percentage reporting no change dropped to one-third and those reporting an increase in degree awarded declined.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Change in departmental budget by academic year

Academic departments with faculty on travel or conducting fieldwork

Have pandemic-related institutional policies changed the number of faculty FTEs allowed?

Departmental staffing impacts

Changes to Fall 2021 student recruiting from previous years

Trend in geoscience enrollments relative to the 2019–2020 academic year (AY)

Summer 2021 enrollment compared to pre-pandemic summer terms

Enrollments by category compared to pre-pandemic years

Comparison of degrees awarded in current academic year to 2019–2020

Pandemic impacts on academic research

The pandemic substantially disrupted research activities for both faculty and students, leading to a wave of deferrals, cancellations, and alterations in research methodologies. Over three-quarters of departments reported deferring research to a later time, and planned research was more frequently cancelled in departments with graduate programs than those with no graduate programs. Furthermore, active research was more frequently cancelled (by about half of departments) for undergraduate research activities.

A widespread adjustment involved transitioning to virtual or computational research. This was particularly noticeable in departments with graduate programs, where the majority of faculty and students implemented this adaptation. In departments without graduate programs, the majority of students — but only about a quarter of faculty - reported making this switch. Approximately a third of departments with graduate programs indicated a shift in research focus towards literature reviews for both faculty and students. This trend was observed in nearly half of the departments without graduate programs, particularly among undergraduate students.

Summer field class was a month of camping and that was Summer 2021. We were approved to be able to go to the field in-person because it was outside and as long as students were separated, they had to sit in our vehicles as we were driving from different spots like we only have like two or three people, and they had to be separated by a long distance and everybody had to wear masks.

–academic faculty

Both field travel international and local and all the lab stuff that shut down for me. So the lab was 100% shut down since March. And so it was probably November when we were allowed to start going back in, very minimally with like one person a day in the whole facility. And so we have to schedule that between all the researchers who are trying to use the facility and everybody who obviously lost six months worth of lab time and so. Things like really actually slowed down for me a lot. I essentially had enough time to go out into the field to collect a bunch of stuff and start working on it, but not actually get any data yet.

–recent graduate

Throughout the pandemic, faculty members divided their time differently across research, teaching, and other responsibilities, depending on their tenure status and gender. Non-tenure-track female faculty spent more time on teaching, committee work, and other academic activities than their male counterparts, who allocated more time to research and writing. For tenure-track faculty, both genders devoted a considerable amount of time to teaching, with women dedicating slightly more time to this activity. Women also spent more time on committee work than men, while men devoted slightly more time to research and writing.

Between April and November 2021, for all faculty types (non-tenure-track, tenured, and tenure-track), the majority of both genders reported no change in the time allocated to academic activities. However, when changes were reported, women generally indicated more changes than men. More women reported increases and decreases in time spent on committee work, other activities, research, and teaching. For writing, both genders reported a slight increase, but more women than men reported a decrease.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Pandemic impacts on student and faculty research, Spring 2020

Time spent on academic activities in the 2021 calendar year (non-tenure-track faculty)

Time spent on academic activities in the 2021 calendar year (tenured faculty)

Time spent on academic activities in the 2021 calendar year (tenure-track faculty)

Change in time spent on academic activities between April and November 2021 (non-tenure-track faculty)

Change in time spent on academic activities between April and November 2021 (tenured faculty)

Change in time spent on academic activities between April and November 2021 (tenure-track faculty)

Pandemic impacts on instruction

In the Spring of 2020, academic departments at both 2-year and 4-year educational institutions were forced to alter and cancel field activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A substantial majority shifted to online formats, while cancellations were more frequent at 4-year institutions than at 2-year institutions. Approximately a quarter of both 2-year and 4-year institutions postponed activities, giving students the opportunity to earn credits later. Notably, nearly a quarter of 4-year institutions waived the credit requirement for cancelled activities, a measure not reported by any 2-year institutions. Regarding lab instruction, the vast majority of departments at both 2-year and 4-year institutions switched to virtual or at-home activities. Computational approaches were more prevalent at 4-year institutions than 2-year institutions, while a small percentage of departments terminated lab instruction.

Throughout the academic years of 2020–2021 and 2021–2022, the cancellation rates varied among different types of courses. Cancellations of lecture and lab courses increased, while cancellations of field components and field courses declined. This data suggests a resurgence of field courses during the 2021–2022 academic year, along with a decline in enrollment affecting the availability of lecture courses and lab sections.

Changes in lecture courses

During the COVID-19 pandemic, academic departments experienced substantial changes in course delivery. Virtual courses, which were reported by about one-fifth of departments in February 2020, increased to nearly all departments by May 2020 due to the shift to remote learning. Virtual courses declined steadily through the pandemic period with sharp declines by Fall 2021 and from the middle to end of 2021. The use of hybrid courses increased over mid-2020, with just over half of departments using this method through most of the 2020–2021 academic year. In-person courses with COVID-19 restrictions were used in tandem with hybrid courses through the 2020–2021 academic year, and increased substantially over mid-2021, becoming the dominant instructional modality for the 2021–2022 academic year as virtual and hybrid methods waned.

As vaccines were rolled out in early 2021, there was a concurrent increase in in-person courses without restrictions to about a fifth of departments incorporating this format. After February 2022, however, the percentage of departments offering in-person courses without restrictions sharply increased from about a fifth of departments to over a half by Spring 2022, and further increased to over 80% by December 2022. Departments also switched from using multiple modes of instruction (i.e., in-person, hybrid, virtual) during the pandemic to primarily in-person only instruction by December 2022.

Changes in field activities

In June 2020, there was a substantial reliance on virtual modes for field activities across academic departments, but this declined sharply by August 2021 to a tenth of departments using virtual modes. Similarly, hybrid field activities were reported by over a fifth of departments between April and May 2021, before decreasing to around 10% by September 2021. In-person field activities at local sites became the dominant mode of field instruction from mid-2020 onwards. In-person instruction at remote sites steadily increased during 2021 and most of 2022, peaking at near two-thirds of departments reporting this modality in July 2022. Cancellation of field activities was most prevalent during late Spring 2021, and otherwise was generally low throughout the period.

Changes in lab sections / courses

Through the 2020–2021 academic year, departments primarily used virtual modes for lab sections/courses, with this trend declining sharply after March 2021 to nearly one-fifth of departments by October 2021. Hybrid formats were reported by a third of departments in April 2021, and declined to less than one-fifth of departments reporting this mode by December 2022. The use of at-home activities and computational activities in labs were used throughout the 2020–2021 academic year, with at-home activities reported by about half of departments and computational approaches by about a third of departments during most of the academic year, but these modalities declined steadily over mid-2021. In-person lab activities with COVID-19 restrictions increased from near one-fifth of departments in June 2020 to over three-quarters using this modality by November 2021, before declining to steadily through 2022 as restrictions eased and in-person lab activities without restrictions steadily increased during that year, becoming the dominant modality by mid-2022.

We were told to be easy on our students, because although at this time they all had some kind of computer access. When they went home, some of them had no internet connections at home. They had to go somewhere else like a church or school parking lot to tie into the net and take tests. Some of them were only looking at screens on their cell phones, so there you are with a PowerPoint and a picture or chart, and they are seeing a miniature version of it. You had to simplify the tests. Where I used to have a picture for every test question, now I had none because they couldn't load them in time and were timing out on these things. We were told to be easy on the on the students in every way possible. We will all get through this, and we all tried. So, the quality of testing went down; the cheating probably went up. It certainly went up in the next year as students got more used to this online procedure and for the next year we were almost all online.

–academic faculty

Computational skills

In 2020 and 2021, faculty commented on mathematical and computational abilities of their students. The skills most often identified as lacking were mathematical and computational abilities, followed by proficiency in Excel, programming, and analytical and interpretative skills. Improvements were seen over the period, however. In 2021, fewer faculty noted students lacking skills related to analysis and interpretation, math and computational skills, data management, and graphing.

Satisfaction with online instruction

Given the rapid changes to instruction during the pandemic, faculty and students were invited to share their input on how satisfied they were with different aspects of online instruction. Between December 2020 and January 2022, faculty and student satisfaction with various aspects of online teaching evolved.

Satisfaction with online course content quality improved for faculty, but declined for students, although over half of both cohorts reported at least moderate satisfaction with online course content over the period. Whereas about a third of faculty were satisfied with online assessments, about half of students reported the same. In regard to student-teacher engagement, over half of students reported at least moderate satisfaction with this aspect of instruction, but less than one-fifth of faculty reported the same. Half of faculty reported being satisfied with the online course platforms, while for students that percentage dropped from two-thirds to less than half over the period. Nearly one-fifth of faculty and a third of students reported being at least moderately satisfied with the ability for students to work in groups. In addition, over half of students and faculty reported satisfaction with the availability of courses over the period.

My professors are due a lot of credit for making it work and transitioning away from that traditional lecture style college course to something that was asynchronous or project based. And I think that there was a direct correlation in my experience between professors who made that switch and the quality of the content. So I like the courses where I could learn at my own pace or do a project and then turn it in and get feedback from the professor. Those courses were great and I learned a lot from them. I got great experience, whereas the ones that were like, alright guys, we're gonna get on Zoom at 7:00 AM and you're gonna listen to me for two hours…I hated those. And that was a really poor experience from a research side. I had to pivot a fair amount because I knew I wanted to go into science.

–graduate student

Challenges with online instruction

Surveys also asked about challenges with online instruction over the 2020–2022 period. The most substantial challenges were student engagement and a perceived decrease in teaching and learning quality. Problems with technology platforms and increased workloads peaked at just over a fifth of faculty reporting this challenge in April 2021, then decreased to near one-tenth by February 2022. From December 2020 to October 2021, academic faculty consistently found that the workload for preparing, teaching, and grading hybrid and online courses was greater than for in-person teaching. However, these percentages decreased over time with a concurrent increase in the percentage of faculty reporting that the workload was the same for in-person instruction, although this change was more substantial for grading than for preparation of courses or teaching. Similarly, for K–12 faculty, hybrid and online course preparation, teaching, and grading were also viewed as more demanding than in-person teaching. However, there was an increase in the perception that these activities required the same amount of work as in-person tasks over the period.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Field course changes during Spring 2020

Lab instruction changes during Spring 2020

Course cancellations by type and academic year

Lecture course instructional formats

Lecture course formats by number of instructional modes

Field activity instructional formats

Field activity formats by number of instructional modes

Lab section / course instructional formats

Lab section / course formats by number of instructional modes

Types of math and programming skills students lack

Satisfaction with online teaching

Satisfaction with online learning

Workload associated with online teaching (academic faculty)

Workload associated with online teaching (K–12 faculty)

Challenges with teaching courses, labs, and field activities in an online setting

Pandemic impacts on student progress

Enrollment status over 2020 to 2022 showed minor impacts on student progress as the majority of students were enrolled full-time in their degree programs. Enrollment figures decreased during summer as students shifted focus to research related to their studies, as well as towards the completion of coursework for their degrees, culminating in their dissertations, theses, or capstone projects. Part-time enrollment accounted for less than one-tenth of the student population for the majority of this period.

Impacts to degree progress

However, between Spring 2021 and Fall 2022, degree progression for continuing students was substantially impacted by changes in the design of student projects, delays in tasks related to student research projects, cancellations or lack of necessary field experiences, and postponements or delays in graduation. However, these impacts lessened over time, and by Fall 2022, around two-thirds of departments reported no disruptions to student degree progress.

Data reported by students echoes that of departments, and similarly, in the second quarter of 2020, more than half of students faced disruptions to their degree progress, largely due to task delays in projects and deferrals or delays in final defenses. The proportion of students reporting any impact reached its peak in the third quarter of 2021, primarily driven by an increase in project delays, research project design alterations, and final defense postponements. There was also a substantial rise in students deferring graduation or being unable to participate in necessary field experiences or courses. However, by the end of 2022, the proportion of students reporting any impact had reduced to half, with project delays and design changes still being the most frequently reported issues.

From May 2021 to December 2022, there was a considerable improvement in the ability of both continuing and graduating students to take required courses for their degrees. During this time, the courses most frequently inaccessible were field courses and their components. However, these issues generally declined, as did issues with the availability of other types of courses, such as labs and lecture courses. The most commonly missed topics during this period included field methods, general geology, environmental science, lab methods, and sedimentology.

Changes in student advising

The frequency of student advising during the pandemic fluctuated somewhat, with half of faculty and students indicating that they maintained similar advising schedules to those before the pandemic throughout this period. A small proportion of faculty and students reported an increase in the frequency of advising compared to pre-pandemic times in October 2020. However, as the pandemic progressed, the proportion of respondents reporting an increased frequency began to diminish in early 2021 but increased over the 2021–2022 academic year to roughly one fifth indicating more frequent meetings.

Changes to student research presentations

At the onset of the pandemic, there were substantial challenges to student research presentations according to departmental reports. About two-thirds of academic departments experienced cancellations of conferences or sessions typically used for student research presentations. A similar proportion of departments transitioned to virtual platforms for these presentations, while less than ten percent of departments opted for an alternative solution by making presentation slides or results available for review, thereby eliminating the need for in-person or virtual presentations. Only one-tenth of departments reported no impact on student research presentations during this period.

Links to relevant survey data charts

What percentage of students were unable to take required courses this academic year?

Types of courses continuing students were unable to take (continuing students)

Types of courses graduating students were unable to take (graduating students)

Topics covered in courses / sections students were unable to take

Impacts to student research presentations between February and May 2020

Frequency of student advising meetings relative to February 2020

Pandemic impacts on degree progress

Enrollment status of students during the pandemic

Pandemic impacts on geoscience employers

In the second quarter of 2020, the majority of geoscience employers experienced disruptions to their operations due to the pandemic. Impacts gradually decreased through 2020 and 2021, although there was a temporary surge in the first quarter of 2021. By the end of 2022, only 40% of businesses reported continued impacts. Initial major issues cited by employers included regulatory restrictions that limited access to facilities, and termination or amendment of contracts that generated revenue, both of which steadily decreased to background levels by the end of 2022. However, disruptions in supply chains and contractor availability were issues noted by 30% to 40% of employers throughout 2020–2022.

Financial performance

At the onset of the pandemic, there was a sharp rise in geoscience employers expecting their financial performance to be lower than the previous year, but these expectations gradually improved until March 2021 and stabilized during the summer months, with fluctuations thereafter through the end of 2022. From the second quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2022, the majority of geoscience employers reported they were working at full or excess capacity, with the percentage of employers noting that they had more work than capacity, increasing from 30% to 41% over the period, while the percentage of those reporting that they had work levels equal to their capacity declined from near 60% to just over a third.

Staffing impacts

Pandemic-related impacts to business staffing were most substantial in 2020 and early 2021, peaking in the third quarter of 2020 when over a third of employers reported negative staffing impacts, which ranged from benefits or salary reductions, hiring freezes, and layoffs or furloughs. The negative impacts generally decreased as active hiring increased in the second quarter of 2021, with more than half of the employers hiring to expand their workforce or to fill positions left vacant early in the pandemic. Job openings and active hiring surged in the third quarter of 2022, with over half of employers reporting job openings and active hiring.

Restrictions on travel and fieldwork

From June 2020 to March 2022, there was a noticeable shift in the travel and fieldwork status of geoscience staff due to varying pandemic policies and personal decisions. The percentage of employers with staff not traveling or doing fieldwork dropped from over half in June 2020 to one-fifth in March 2022, as restrictions eased and staff resumed travel and fieldwork activities. The influences of personal decisions, institutional policies, and government policies on these changes varied over time, with personal decisions by staff being the most reported reason for not conducting fieldwork or traveling.

In addition, from April 2022 to December 2022, the prevalence of pandemic-related restrictions among geoscience employers declined. Restrictions regarding facility access, staffing, health and safety, meetings, and travel fluctuated throughout the year but generally trended downward. There was a brief spike in restrictions in November, likely due to the anticipated increase in flu and COVID cases during the holiday season.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Types of pandemic-related impacts to business operations

Expected financial performance for current calendar year relative to last year

Expected financial performance for current calendar year relative to pre-pandemic conditions

Level of work relative to capacity

Changes to geoscience employer staffing as a result of the pandemic

Employers with staff on travel or conducting fieldwork

Types of pandemic related restrictions on geoscience employers

Pandemic impacts on hiring

In the third quarter of 2020, the most substantial issue for geoscience employers related to recruiting, hiring, and onboarding new employees was the hiring process, affecting just less than half of employers. This issue gradually declined, affecting only a quarter of businesses by the end of 2022. Recruiting difficulties peaked in the second quarter of 2021, reported by just under a half of employers, and slowly decreased to one-third by the end of 2022. Challenges related to onboarding and training new hires were reported by one-tenth to one-fifth of employers over the period. Overall, employers issues related to recruiting, hiring, and onboarding processes improved over time, with the percentage of employers reporting no challenges increasing from one-fifth in the third quarter of 2020 to over half by the end of 2022.

Onboarding is proving to be a challenge. Not from a technical proficiency standpoint, but from assimilation into the culture and core values of the organization. Also, some animosity is starting to creep in from those that need to be in the office to do their jobs, vs. those that can work remote 100%. The pandemic has exacerbated some of our pre-existing problems with hiring, onboarding, and training; new hires receive more assistance and direction from mid-level staff of the same latitude than they have access to direction from top-level staff. A lot of the interviewing, hiring, on-boarding, training, etc. of new employees has been changed by the new remote work environment. A lot of these tasks are now done remotely. Recruiting remains an issue, as there seems to be limited number of both experienced and entry-level geoscientists available. Definitely fewer applicants per opening than pre-pandemic.

–geoscience employer

In Spring 2022, over half of employers identified some form of skills or knowledge gap in their new hires, but this percentage declined rapidly to less than a third by Fall 2022. Employers increasingly reported geoscience knowledge gaps, with a quarter of employers noting this in the Fall of 2022. Noted gaps in productivity and interpersonal skills both improved over this period, while noted gaps in technical skills varied over the period, with just over one fifth of employers noting this in Spring and Fall of 2022. When comparing pandemic-era hires to pre-pandemic hires, most employers reported the two cohorts were similar in terms of their productivity, technical skills, geoscience knowledge, and interpersonal skills. However, the percentage of employers noting that pandemic era hires performed less well in terms of productivity and interpersonal skills increased over the period to 25%, while employers noting declines in technical skills increased to just over 10%.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Challenges with recruiting, hiring, and onboarding activities

Skills and knowledge gaps noted by employers in pandemic new hires

Skills and knowledge of pandemic hires relative to pre-pandemic hires

Pandemic impacts on employment status

The employment tenure of study participants demonstrated a clear trend of increasing tenure with more time spent in the workforce. Participants who graduated before 2014 predominantly reported being in their jobs for over 10 years. On the other hand, recent graduates from 2019 to 2022 were mainly in the early stages of their careers and had been in their jobs for less than 1 to 2 years. The trends of employment across sectors varied per cohort. For instance, graduates from 2000 to 2009 saw a shift towards non-academic geoscience employment. In contrast, a balance existed between academic and non-academic geoscience jobs among 2010–2013 and 2014–2018 graduates. Interestingly, the 2019–2022 graduate cohort saw an uptick in academic positions. Those who graduated before 2000 reported a substantial increase in retirements and a decline in academic positions at the end of 2022. For all but the most recent graduating cohort, unemployment rates remained relatively low.

From May 2020 to December 2022, full-time employment was the most prevalent status among participants in the study, with part-time and contract work reported by less than a tenth of participants. Similar patterns were observed across specific cohorts. Academic faculty and non-academic geoscientists mostly reported full-time employment. Furloughs were generally low across all cohorts as well.

Over half of the geoscience retirees continued their involvement in the geoscience profession and/or volunteer activities during the pandemic, with engagement peaking in May 2020. Research, project work, consulting activities, volunteer activities, and participation in geoscience professional activities were the main pursuits among active retirees. Over half of those fully retired stated they had done so before 2020, with just over a fifth entering full retirement in 2021. Among those who reported partial retirement, most had done so before 2020, with the remainder transitioning to partial retirement evenly spread across 2020 to 2022.

From 2020 to 2022, most unemployed geoscientists were actively seeking employment. Job seeking in both geoscience and non-geoscience fields declined over 2020–2022 as job searches became more focused, and a slight increase occurred in those not seeking employment. The professional, scientific, and technical services industry attracted over two-thirds of job seekers between 2020 and 2022, making it the most attractive industry, while interest in mining, oil & gas extraction, and government agencies decreased over the same period. The primary reasons for seeking employment outside geosciences included a lack of available jobs, reluctance to relocate, and perceived lack of opportunities within the geosciences.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Employment intensity of employed study participants during the pandemic

Employment intensity of employed faculty during the pandemic

Employment intensity of employed K–12 faculty during the pandemic

Employment intensity of employed post-doctoral fellows during the pandemic

Employment intensity of employed study participants in non-faculty occupations during the pandemic

Status of geoscience retirees during the pandemic

Types of activities retirees were engaged in during the pandemic

Year when retirement began for retired study participants

Employment sectors sought by unemployed geoscientists

Reasons for seeking employment outside of the geosciences

Number of sectors in which unemployed geoscientists are seeking employment

Status of unemployed geoscientists over the pandemic

Pandemic impacts on work and research activities

Pandemic impacts on fieldwork, lab activities, and research activities during Spring 2020 were clearly visible across all study cohorts. Regarding fieldwork, most non-academic geoscientists reported having their projects deferred, whereas cancellations of fieldwork were more common among faculty and students. In addition, just over a fifth of post-doctoral fellows and non-academic geoscientists reported no impact on their fieldwork.

Regarding lab activities, most post-doctoral fellows reported having their research or projects deferred, and nearly half of faculty also reported this impact. Termination of active research was reported by a third of students and just over a quarter of faculty. Just over a fifth of non-academic geoscientists reported no impact on their lab activities.

Regarding research activities, deferrals were most common among academic faculty, non-academic geoscientists, and post-doctoral fellows. Many shifted their research mode to virtual or computational methods or converted to literature review activities, especially post-doctoral fellows. Cancellations of planned research affected nearly 30% of all cohorts, while cancellation of active research was more common among faculty and non-academic geoscientists.

Caregiving and domestic responsibilities

During the pandemic, the impact of caregiving and domestic responsibilities on work hours and productivity among academic faculty and non-academic geoscientists varied between genders and occupational status. In April 2021, more women than men in both groups reported work hour reductions due to childcare and household management, while more men in faculty occupations reported reductions due to eldercare. This difference was also observed in productivity impacts, with more women than men reporting effects due to childcare and household management, and eldercare affecting men more substantially. By December 2021, the distribution had changed slightly. Among academic faculty, men reported greater impacts due to childcare than they did in April 2021. However, women continued to report higher impacts than men due to childcare and household management. Productivity impacts were closer than in April 2021, with men reporting slightly higher productivity impacts than women in terms of childcare, and for eldercare, more men in academic occupations reporting higher productivity impacts than women in academic occupations.

One of the first kind of personal difficulties I had was having young children at home. We live in a 2-bedroom apartment and so there's not like a whole dedicated office space. And so my kitchen counter became my office. And so the first hurdle was just that logistic of finding the space, the quiet space with young children that, you know, I had a child born during COVID. And then my oldest, she was four at the time, so you can imagine what that looked like. And so, you know, it's kind of adjusting just to the change setting and it's funny, you know, there were days I worked from home before the pandemic. But of course, in those instances, you know, the house was empty, kids were at school, etcetera. Now everyone being home all at once, that was definitely, you know, a good kind of personal challenge.

–recent graduate

Restrictions on work and research

Between June 2020 and December 2022, pandemic-related restrictions such as facility limitations, health and safety measures, and meeting and travel restrictions were observed across different participant groups including academic faculty, K–12 faculty, post-doctoral fellows, students, and non-academic geoscientists. Trends indicated a general decrease in facility restrictions, signaling a gradual reopening of businesses and campuses. Health and safety restrictions also declined gradually after initially remaining high, while meeting and travel restrictions showed a consistent decrease over time. The proportion of participants experiencing no restrictions increased during this period.

In this same period, facility restrictions substantially impacted study participants, with noticeable improvements after Summer 2021. These included access restrictions, staffing reductions, and approval requirements for site access, with over half of participants initially experiencing these challenges. This percentage dropped to less than 10% by mid-2022. Similarly, deferral of field and lab activities also decreased during this period.

From June 2020 to December 2022, meeting and travel restrictions due to the pandemic had substantial but declining impacts on various groups, including academic faculty, K–12 faculty, post-doctoral fellows, students, and non-academic geoscientists. Initially, online or phone meetings were predominant, but travel and meeting restrictions, as well as travel prohibition, self-isolation requirements, and vehicle restrictions, declined substantially by December 2022.

Over the same period, different groups experienced substantial health and safety restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across all cohorts, social distancing, face mask usage, and increased health and safety protocols were prevalent. The use of personal protective equipment and health assessments were also reported but decreased over time. COVID testing and vaccination requirements and recommendations became more prominent from October 2021 through March 2022 respectively.

Supply shortages

Supply shortages also impacted study participants during the pandemic, with most impacts being noted in late 2020 and late 2021. For academic departments, lab supplies were the most critical shortage, especially during December 2021, whereas for employers, personal protective equipment shortages were the most critical, peaking during December 2020, followed by IT supplies throughout the 2020–2022 period. Other groups, such as academic and K–12 faculty, post-doctoral fellows, students, and non-academic geoscientists, also faced varying degrees of supply shortages, with fluctuating reports over the period. Despite the fluctuations in supply shortages, with most study participants noting no supply shortages by March 2022.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Pandemic impacts on field activities, Spring 2020

Pandemic impacts on lab activities, Spring 2020

Pandemic impacts on research activities, Spring 2020

Reduced hours because of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, April 2021

Reduced hours because of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, December 2021

Productivity impacts from caregiving and domestic responsibilities, April 2021

Productivity impacts from caregiving and domestic responsibilities, December 2021

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (K–12 faculty)

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (post-docs)

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (students)

Facility restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (K–12 faculty)

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (post-docs)

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (students)

Health and safety restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (K–12 faculty)

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (post-docs)

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (students)

Meeting and travel restrictions to work and research activities during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (academic departments)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (geoscience employers)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (K–12 faculty)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (post-docs)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (students)

Supply shortages during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Pandemic impacts on work environments

The analysis of remote work productivity from 2020 to 2022 identified several trends. Overall, study participants reported enhancements in productivity for focus, collaboration, meetings, and research activities over the period. Academic faculty demonstrated a similar trend except for remote work activities related to teaching and the ability to focus, where there were declines reported in the level of productivity over time. Non-academic geoscientists consistently reported high productivity in focus and research, collaboration, and meetings.

From 2020 to 2022, the pandemic brought about various challenges across all work environments. The most frequently reported issue was the lack of in-person interaction, followed by collaboration impacts, less effective communication, and health and safety concerns. Workflow delays were reported more by departments than employers or individuals, as were childcare issues. Having remote work environments that were not optimal for work activities was cited by over half of individuals and employers, and over a third of departments. Impacts on research and work activities were reported by three-quarters of departments, and nearly half of individuals and employers. Decreased work/life balance was mentioned more by departments and individuals than by employers. Decreased productivity was noted by nearly half of departments, and over a quarter of individuals and employers. Increased distractions were reported by over a third of individuals. Impacts to student engagement and learning as well as to teaching and course delivery were noted by about a third of departments and individuals.

From 2020 to 2022, academic departments observed considerable increases in health and safety concerns, lack of in-person interaction, and struggles by staff and faculty with managing childcare. Geoscience employers also noted similar issues, especially a rise in the lack of in-person interaction. Among individual cohorts (i.e., academic faculty, post-doctoral fellows, non-academic geoscientists, students, K–12 faculty) there was a substantial increase in concerns about decreased work/life balance and lack of in-person interaction, followed by increased distractions, childcare management issues, and collaboration impacts.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Productivity with remote work activities

Productivity with remote work activities (academic faculty)

Productivity with remote work activities (non-academic geoscientists)

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (2020-2022)

Faculty and staff challenges with work environments during the pandemic

Employee challenges with work environments during the pandemic

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (K–12 faculty)

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (post-docs)

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (students)

Challenges with work environments during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Pandemic impacts on professional credentialling

The challenges experienced by academic departments and individuals preparing for geology licensure and professional certifications during the pandemic varied. Only a quarter of academic departments reported that their graduating students intended to take the Fundamentals of Geology exam in the 2021–2022 academic year. While most departments and participants reported no challenges with preparing for licensure and professional certification exams, a small percentage did. The acceptance of field requirements was a problem noted by 15% of departments, and less than 10% of participants noted issues related to the acceptance of lecture or lab requirements. Scheduling was an issue reported by less than one-fifth of departments and participants, as was exam preparation.

Among academic faculty, one quarter held a Professional Geologist license, while nearly one-tenth were Certified Professional Geologists, or held other professional licenses. Non-academic geoscientists had a higher rate of licensure, with over half holding a Professional Geologist license, and about a tenth having Professional Engineer licenses or other geoscience professional licenses.

Regarding intentions to take professional certification or licensing exams, less than 5% of students, and less than a quarter of recent graduates expressed such plans. For those intending to take an exam, state professional geology license exams were commonly cited across cohorts. OSHA safety certification courses were cited by most non-academic geoscientists, while drone licenses were cited by academic faculty. The most common reason for not taking professional licensure or certification exams across most groups was that the licensure or certification was not required. Other common reasons included being already licensed or certified, lacking enough experience, and the cost of the exams.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Graduating students intending to take the Fundamentals of Geology exam in the 2021-2022 academic year

Challenges with preparing for licensure and professional certifications during the pandemic

Reasons for not taking professional licensure / certification exams in 2021

Plans for professional licensure / certification exams in 2021

Plans for taking professional certification of licensing exams in 2021

Professional credentials by survey cohort

Pandemic impacts on library usage

Library usage and issues related to library resource access in 2020 varied among different study groups. With respect to the types of libraries used, most academic faculty, post-doctoral fellows, students, and unemployed individuals primarily used university or college libraries. Public libraries were mainly utilized by retirees, while K–12 faculty predominantly relied on K–12 libraries. Government libraries were most frequently used by non-academic geoscientists. Notably, a considerable number of individuals across all cohorts did not use any library during this time.

Variations in the use of library resources compared to February 2020 were observed across cohorts and types of resources. Generally, most groups reported a decrease or no change in the usage of customer service resources, Inter-Library Loan resources, journal access, and print materials. Notably, the usage of print materials experienced a substantial decrease across all cohorts. Access issues became prominent in October 2020, with print materials and journal articles presenting the most challenges. Over one-quarter of respondents reported a lack of access to library subscriptions, while about one-quarter reported issues with the Inter-Library Loan system and library closures. In terms of access difficulties, post-doctoral fellows and unemployed individuals faced the most challenges in obtaining certain items, whereas retirees and non-academic geoscientists reported the fewest problems.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Types of libraries used between September and October 2020

Types of library resource access issues experienced by survey participants

Have there been items you have not been able to access or obtain through your library?

Usage of library resources relative to February 2020: Customer service (emails, chat, phone)

Usage of library resources relative to February 2020: Inter-Library Loan services

Usage of library resources relative to February 2020: Journal access

Usage of library resources relative to February 2020: Print materials

Pandemic-driven concerns throughout 2020–2022

From the third quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2022, a general decline in pandemic-related concerns was noted among various groups, including recent graduates, academic departments, geoscience employers, and non-academic geoscientists. Key areas of reduced concern involved academic rigor, job security, employment availability, financial obligations, and workplace safety. However, the levels of concern differed and fluctuated over time among academic faculty, K–12 faculty, post-doctoral fellows, retired geoscientists, students, and unemployed geoscientists. For instance, students noted increasing concerns about job security and workplace safety, whereas unemployed geoscientists experienced varying trends, with substantial increases and subsequent decreases in areas such as job security and employment availability. Among these groups, retired geoscientists reported the fewest pandemic-related concerns.

Academic departments noted a general decrease in all pandemic-driven concerns throughout the period, with financial outlook, adapting to new instructional methods, hiring new employees, and workplace safety experiencing substantial declines. Geoscience employers witnessed a substantial decrease in pandemic-driven concerns related to financial outlook, hiring, staffing levels, and workplace safety. However, concerns about supply chain disruptions initially decreased and then resurged by the first quarter of 2022.

Concerns about academic rigor and the availability of educational programs fluctuated among academic and K–12 faculty during the pandemic, but there was a consistent decrease in workplace safety and job security concerns. Additionally, K–12 faculty's financial concerns remained steady, with a sharp rise at the start of 2022.

Geoscience students showed increasing concerns over job security and workplace safety. Pandemic-driven worries about employment availability remained high, and financial concerns surged between the end of 2020 and the start of 2022. Among recent graduates (2014–2018), there was a general decrease in concerns about academic rigor, financial obligations, job security, availability of employment, and workplace safety between the third quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2022, with job security and availability of employment witnessing substantial declines. Recent graduates (2019–2022) saw a substantial decrease in pandemic-related concerns, particularly about employment availability and job security, during the same period. Concerns about academic rigor, educational programs, and financial obligations showed minor changes, while concerns about workplace safety remained steady.

Pandemic-driven concerns varied for post-doctoral fellows, with steady financial concerns, decreasing job security concerns, declining employment concerns, but slightly increasing workplace safety concerns. Non-academic geoscientists experienced an overall decrease in concerns across all areas, with a more considerable decline in concerns regarding employment availability, financial obligations, and job security. However, workplace safety remained the most substantial concern throughout the period. Pandemic-related concerns among unemployed geoscientists varied, with substantial initial increases in concerns related to employment availability, job security, and workplace safety, followed by gradual decreases.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Recent graduates (2014–2018): Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Recent graduates (2019–2022): Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Academic departments: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Geoscience employers: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Academic faculty: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

K–12 faculty: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Post-docs: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Retirees: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Students: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Unemployed geoscientists: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

Non-academic geoscientists: Concerns moderately to extremely driven by COVID-19

From the fourth quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2022, non-pandemic related concerns among various groups demonstrated mixed trends. Concerns related to meeting financial obligations and job security increased among most cohorts. Academic departments and geoscience employers also reported increasing concerns about their financial outlook, hiring new employees, and maintaining staffing levels. However, concerns related to the academic rigor of programs, workplace safety, and employment availability decreased for most cohorts. Concerns related to the availability of educational programs also decreased for recent graduates, academic faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students.

Academic departments noted a general increase in concerns, specifically in adapting to new instructional methods, financial outlook, hiring, maintaining staffing levels, and student recruitment and retention. Geoscience employers expressed growing concerns about financial outlook, maintaining staffing levels, and hiring, while concerns about business operation regulations and workplace safety diminished.

Students reported a decrease in all major concerns, except for employment availability, which remained their most pressing worry. Among recent graduates (2014–2018), non-pandemic related concerns over the academic rigor of programs and employment availability decreased, while concerns over meeting financial obligations and job security substantially increased. Recent graduates (2019–2022) also reported similar concerns, with minor increases in concerns about academic rigor and employment availability. However, this cohort noted a slight decrease in concerns about the availability of educational programs and workplace safety.

Academic faculty experienced a decrease in concerns about academic rigor and job security, but an increase in concerns about meeting financial obligations and workplace safety. K–12 faculty indicated a decrease in concerns about the academic rigor of programs, but an increase in concerns related to the availability of educational programs, meeting financial obligations, job security, and workplace safety.

Post-doctoral fellows reported a substantial decrease in concerns about academic rigor and the availability of educational programs, but a sharp increase in worries about job security and meeting financial obligations. Non-academic geoscientists noted an increase in concerns about the academic rigor of programs, the availability of educational programs, meeting financial obligations, and job security. However, they reported a decrease in concerns about employment availability. Unemployed geoscientists expressed a decrease in concerns about the academic rigor of programs and workplace safety, but a substantial increase in concerns related to the availability of educational programs, meeting financial obligations, and job security. Geoscience retirees noted slight increases in concerns related to the academic rigor of programs, the availability of educational programs, meeting financial obligations, and job security.