Strategies: How did geoscientists adapt and navigate pandemic-related impacts?

Within the geosciences, employers, academic departments, and individuals employed a variety of strategies to adapt to and navigate through the various pandemic-related impacts. Adaptations to instructional methods ranged from shifting the format of courses and learning activities to a combination of in-person and online which also required faculty to re-design their curriculum. Departments also adjusted degree program requirements to adapt to research project delays and in-person activity restrictions.

With the restrictions on facility access and travel, many projects were re-focused on literature reviews and modeling where possible, and others were redesigned to fit within pandemic-related constraints. Other strategies revolved around being resourceful, which included finding motivation and self-direction in the midst of the myriad of challenges to keep projects, schoolwork, work and research moving forward. Technology platforms were used ubiquitously during the pandemic as a bridge for communication and collaboration, providing a way for individuals to check in with each other, share ideas, learn new skills, and work together on projects.

In addition, supportive actions by employers, departments, and faculty helped to ease some of the challenges employees and students were facing. Providing equipment and financial support for employees to make the transition to working from home was helpful, especially in the early days of the pandemic. Adjusting project and research deadlines and allowing for flexibility in work hours, helped to reduce the stress for projects that were in part or completely delayed due to restrictions and supply chain disruptions, and for managing family care and other household responsibilities.

Adaptations to instructional methods

During the pandemic, academic departments and faculty employed various instructional adaptations to maintain teaching and research activities, notwithstanding the challenges brought about by the pandemic. These modifications included incorporating new instructional methods, restructuring courses for online settings, introducing and phasing out courses and degree paths, and implementing health and safety measures during in-person teaching.

Four-year academic institutions

Throughout the pandemic, institutional plans for instructional activity shifted over each academic term. From June 2020 through early 2021, academic departments at four-year institutions reported that their institutions were planning for in-person instruction with pandemic-related restrictions for the next academic term. However, by December 2022, less than a fifth of these departments reported such plans. Pandemic-related restrictions, including altered schedules, class size limitations, face mask mandates, and social distancing measures, were common in 2020 and 2021 but gradually faded or were discontinued by the end of 2022. As in-person instruction resumed in the 2021–2022 academic year, face masks, COVID testing, and vaccination were the principal restrictions, which likewise phased out by the end of 2022. Hybrid courses were reported by one-quarter to a third of departments between Spring 2021 and early 2022, after which they declined to nearly one-fifth for the rest of the period.

Two-year academic institutions

Academic departments at two-year institutions exhibited a more diverse range of plans for academic instruction when compared to their counterparts at four-year institutions. From June 2020 through March 2022, most institutional plans focused on online courses as the primary instructional modality for the next academic term. This was then replaced by plans for in-person courses with pandemic-related restrictions and hybrid courses, which dominated until early 2022. At this point, plans for in-person courses without restrictions became the prevailing instructional mode. Notably, more than half of the departments reported plans to offer hybrid courses through the end of 2022. Furthermore, plans for online courses saw an upswing during the first half of the 2022–2023 academic year. By December 2022, the most frequently reported plans at two-year institutions were in-person courses without restrictions, hybrid courses, and online courses. During 2020 and 2021, pandemic-related restrictions on in-person instruction, such as altered schedules, class size limitations, and face mask requirements, were prevalent. However, these measures dwindled to minimal percentages or were phased out entirely by 2022. Mirroring the experience of four-year institutions, COVID testing, vaccination recommendations or requirements, face mask mandates, and social distancing reached their peak during the first half of the 2021–2022 academic year, but then sharply declined by Spring 2022.

We took an extra week of spring break, partly to try and get the servers upgraded to the point we could handle a lot of the online teaching that we knew we were going to have to do for at least a while. Also, to get the faculty on board, and have sort of crash courses on how to use various tools within our online content management system. Fortunately, I had been doing a lot of my grading online, in terms of like keeping track of student records and I had done that for three or four years. I had also put all the class material that was available online prior to the pandemic. I just felt like that was the easiest way for students to stay with it. That helped me a lot because I was already confident in using that system and familiar with it. The thing that I think was not so good was at the end of that first semester we were told not to do many real-time kinds of lecturing or interacting with the students. Again, they were worried about the overload with our servers. I was recording PowerPoints and things, but that did not work for my graduate level class. But those classes were small, and I said: “OK, let’s start meeting online. That way you can ask me questions in real time.” I think towards the end of that semester I also had a help session for teaching an undergraduate class where I would I go over some of the homework. I started getting increased student attendance once they realized that that really helped, and they were doing better on exams.

–academic faculty

K–12 institutions

K–12 institutions saw a faster transition back to in-person teaching than post-secondary institutions. As early as September 2020, more than half of K–12 institutions reported plans for in-person courses with pandemic-related restrictions for the next academic term. This proportion rose to over three-quarters by December 2020, fell during the summer months of 2021, and then climbed again during the 2021–2022 academic year. Throughout the period, the prevalence of plans for online instruction saw fluctuations but generally decreased from over a third of institutions in June 2020 to less than a fifth by August 2021. Plans for hybrid instruction was reported by less than a third of institutions during the same period. In-person instruction without restrictions saw a sharp increase in Spring 2021 and became the primary mode of teaching during the Summer of 2022. However, this trend declined during the 2021–2022 academic year, only to rebound and become the dominant mode of instruction again by Spring 2022. By December 2022, other instructional modes had significantly reduced or been completely phased out. Pandemic-related restrictions, such as altered schedules, limited class sizes, social distancing, and admitting select cohorts on campus, reached their peak in 2020 or early 2021 and then dwindled to low percentages or were phased out entirely by 2022. During the 2021–2022 academic year, the primary pandemic-related restrictions were the use of face masks, COVID testing, vaccinations, and social distancing. These restrictions saw a sharp decrease by April 2022.

Course format adaptations

Institutional policies for course formats evolved in response to the pandemic, leading to substantial changes in instructional formats within departments. Academic departments at 4-year institutions experienced a marked shift from predominantly single-mode in-person lecture courses in February 2020 to primarily single-mode virtual courses by May 2020. From June 2020 onwards, a blend of in-person and virtual elements became the norm until in-person instruction resumed as the main instructional mode in the 2021–2022 academic year. Yet, by December 2022, more than a quarter of departments reported utilizing multiple modes of instruction for lecture courses.

Field instruction adaptations

In June 2020, virtual methods were the predominant mode of field instruction in academic departments. However, by August 2020, in-person activities at local sites overtook virtual instruction. Initially, these in-person activities were undertaken by students alone, but as restrictions gradually eased, these activities included instructors and student groups. From March to August 2021, virtual field activities saw a sharp decline, with fewer than a tenth of departments employing this approach. Between April and May 2021, hybrid field activities were noted by one-fifth to one-third of departments, but this number dropped to nearly one-tenth by September 2021.

By September 2021, over three-quarters of departments reported using in-person field activities at local sites. In-person instruction at remote field sites initially had minimal implementation but saw a gradual increase from 2021 through the Summer of 2022. It peaked in July 2022, with two-thirds of departments employing this mode, before decreasing to just under a third in December 2022.

Field activity cancellations were generally low, peaking in May 2021 when just over a quarter of departments reported either cancellations or non-offerings of field activities. However, after May 2022, no further cancellations were reported.

The number of instructional modalities used varied throughout the pandemic. By December 2022, over a third of departments reported using a mix of instructional modalities for field activities, primarily in-person at either local or remote sites. However, a few departments also incorporated aspects of virtual or hybrid instruction.

I taught intro geology almost completely online, but with a couple of field trips. One was on campus, and I took people around to see the local building materials and the local history of the school to get them an idea of an introduction to deep geologic time by looking at the buildings and pointing out how the campus had changed over the years. I was pointing out leaves that had left imprints in wet concrete. That kind of thing. I did whatever I could walking around as I figured the ultraviolet would kill most of the virus and we did not have to stand too close together. I still wore a mask. I also had students meet at a couple of other places off campus that were close enough. I had them go to a graveyard and look at weathering and gravestones, and I augmented that with a virtual field trip. It's a large campus, and we have nature trails. We have a few outcrops that are on campus, and chalk, so it was possible to show them some fossils and outcrops and that kind of thing, but the school allowed almost no travel of any kind. We were not going to conventions, and we were certainly not packing students into a 15-person van with poor ventilation to take them anywhere. We haven't changed the curriculum to accommodate COVID very much. Instead, we tried to adapt the courses to the students' needs.

–academic faculty

Lab section / course adaptations

In June 2020, a majority of departments leveraged various instructional modes to sustain lab sections and courses amid the pandemic. Virtual instruction, frequently combined with at-home activities and computational methodologies, was used extensively throughout 2020. As the 2020–2021 academic year began, in-person instruction with pandemic-related restrictions was often integrated into the instructional mix. Virtual instruction, at-home activities, and computational activities saw a decline throughout the first half of 2021 as in-person instruction with pandemic-related restrictions became the dominant mode for over two-thirds of departments. A sharp increase in in-person instruction without restrictions was noted in early 2022, surpassing in-person instruction with pandemic-related restrictions by Spring 2022. By the end of 2022, less than a fifth of departments reported using any instructional modes other than in-person instruction without restrictions, and slightly over a quarter of departments reported employing a mix of instructional modes for lab sections and courses.

Group work in breakouts on Zoom saves time moving around, groups get privacy, I can easily screenshot a list of students in each group for attendance, and random assignments get students to meet new people faster. The accessibility was great, including recording and captioning lectures. Virtual labs worked really well when I completely redesigned them to function in that space (not just modified in person) and helped prepare students to use their computers more effectively. Virtual field trips were fantastic for getting more details, accessibility, and by creating my own (with 3D models, thin sections, etc.), I will continue using it, as a way to prepare students for going in the field.

–academic faculty

Degree program adaptations

In addition to modifying instructional modes, departments also adapted to pandemic conditions by introducing new courses and adapting geoscience degree program requirements, while phasing out others. During the 2021–2022 academic year, almost a quarter of academic departments launched new courses or degree tracks, while slightly over a tenth of departments phased out existing courses or degree tracks. The new courses covered a variety of subjects such as climate studies, coastal processes, earth systems science, environmental geology, environmental science, field methods, hazards, geology, GIS, oceanography, paleontology, paleolimnology, soil science, and sustainability. New degree programs spanned a range of topics at both undergraduate and graduate levels, including environmental geology, computational geoscience, environmental science, climate change, ocean science, sustainability, geo-intelligence, data analytics, and mineral exploration. Courses that were phased out encompassed electives, courses previously taught by faculty members who had left the department, and those deemed irrelevant to the updated curriculum. Some departments also phased out bachelor's degree programs, citing reasons such as lack of sufficient majors or interest in the programs.

During the pandemic, some departments adjusted degree program requirements to help students meet their program criteria. By November 2021, the majority of academic departments had reported no alterations to degree requirements, but by November 2022, just over half indicated that they had not made any permanent changes to their academic degree programs. Among the departments that did make changes, the most common permanent adjustment, reported by just over a quarter of departments, was offering flexibility in the mode of defense. Other permanent changes encompassed accepting course substitutions, waiving prerequisites, extending the duration of the degree program, integrating new skillsets into the curriculum, and accepting demonstrated competency as a reason to waive courses.

Adaptations to curricula

During the 2020–2021 academic year, both academic and K–12 faculty made substantial curriculum alterations in response to the pandemic. Within academia, three-quarters of the faculty adjusted their curriculums. The most common alteration was the conversion of course content into an online format, followed by course streamlining and content removal. Other changes involved adding content to courses, modifying the grading format, among other alterations. In 2020 and 2021, faculty also incorporated more math and programming skills into the curriculum for virtual labs and field activities. However, most faculty perceived a lack of these skills among students. In 2020, over three-quarters of faculty observed a deficiency in student math or programming skills. This issue saw slight improvement, but two-thirds of faculty still noted these deficiencies in 2021.

In the K–12 sector, a vast majority of faculty made adjustments to their curriculum, with more than half reducing the amount of content, likely to simplify learning amidst the pandemic. Nearly a third of K–12 faculty adapted to remote learning by converting course content to an online format, while no faculty reported adding content or changing the grading format.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Courses and/or degree tracks phased in/out during the 2021–2022 academic year

Changes made by faculty to curriculum during the 2020–2021 academic year

Changes made by K–12 faculty to curriculum during the 2020–2021 academic year

Changes made to geoscience academic degree programs

Institutional plans for next academic term (4-year institutions)

Institutional plans for next academic term related to pandemic restrictions (4-year institutions)

Institutional plans for next academic term (2-year institutions)

Institutional plans for next academic term related to pandemic restrictions (2-year institutions)

Institutional plans for next academic term (K–12 institutions)

Institutional plans for next academic term related to pandemic restrictions (K–12 institutions)

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

Math and programming skills in the curriculum

Adaptations for students

From June 2021 to December 2022, the proportion of students postponing their graduation to fulfill degree requirements declined. Although the percentage of academic departments reporting no students delaying graduation varied, the departments reporting that more than 10% of their students were postponing graduation declined from nearly a fifth in June 2021 to none by December 2022.

In addition to extending their degree programs' duration, students also enrolled in courses during the Summer 2021 term, with field and lecture courses being the most common types. Among students who graduated prior to September 2021, field courses were most popular, followed by lecture courses. For continuing students, lecture courses were most popular, followed by field courses. Lab courses or sections also were of interest, with over a third of departments reporting both continuing and graduating students registering for these courses. In addition, the majority of academic departments did not permit pandemic-era geoscience graduates to take classes post-graduation. Only a small proportion of departments added time slots or sections to accommodate these students.

Even though most departments did not offer any makeup opportunities for students to catch up on their degree programs, several departments provided such opportunities for specific types of classes, including field courses, lecture courses, and lab courses or sections. This demonstrates that despite the majority of departments not offering makeup opportunities, some departments helped students compensate for missed fieldwork and course components due to the pandemic's disruption of their education.

One thing that we did was we instituted a pass-fail option. If students were worried that they were not going to get above a C on a particular course, they could request that their grade just be recorded as pass or fail. We also extended the withdrawal deadline to the very last day of classes. That way, if students were willing to try it and just gut it out, and they just got to the very end, and they still could not succeed, then they could withdraw, and it would not negatively impact their GPA.

–academic faculty

Despite significant learning disruptions throughout the pandemic, students remained dedicated to their degree programs, with the majority planning to return full-time in the next term to continue their studies. Although about a third of students aimed to graduate by Summer 2021, there was a notable increase to over half of students planning to graduate by Summer 2022. The percentage of students intending to return part-time remained low and generally decreased over time, while the proportion of students considering deferring enrollment, discontinuing studies, or being undecided had two surges, in Fall 2020 and Fall 2021. However, these intentions were no longer reported after May 2022.

Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, most students were able to fulfill their degree program requirements. While completion rates for lecture and lab courses among graduating cohorts were high, field courses posed more difficulties, with completion rates dropping significantly from over three-quarters for the class of 2020 to half for the class of 2022. Substitutions and waivers became increasingly common for field courses and their components, with waivers more common for field courses. Notably, less than a tenth of the students graduating in 2021 were unable to complete the required field components of courses.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Students delaying graduation in order to complete degree requirements

Types of courses students took during Summer 2021 term

Students taking coursework during Summer 2021 term

Did your department expand options to allow students to catch up on their degree programs?

Were pandemic-era geoscience graduates allowed to take classes after graduation?

Enrollment intention for next term

How students navigated degree program course requirements during the pandemic

Adaptations to research activities

Throughout the pandemic, academic departments consistently reported high research engagement among faculty and students. More than 90% of departments with graduate programs and over 80% of departments without such programs reported faculty involvement in research. More than three-quarters of departments with graduate programs also reported faculty participation in a range of research activities including online research, computational research, literature reviews, writing, lab-based and field activities. In contrast, departments without graduate programs reported slightly less engagement in these activities, though over three-quarters still reported faculty involvement in literature review, writing, lab-based research, and online research, and over half indicated faculty engagement in field work and computational research.

Staff involvement in departments with graduate programs increased from less than a fifth to almost two-thirds, while in departments without graduate programs reported relatively low staff engagement in research, which was at or below 10% from June 2020 through June 2021 which then increased to between 20% and 30% for the rest of the period.

Undergraduate student research

Regarding undergraduate student involvement in research, departments with graduate programs reported a substantial increase between June 2020 and August 2020, from just over a third to nearly 90%, which then generally remained at or above this level until March 2022. In comparison, over half of these departments without graduate programs reported undergraduates involved in research in June 2020, with this percentage increasing to over 90% by September 2020, after which fluctuated between 60% and 90% until March 2022. More than half of all departments reported substantial undergraduate student engagement in various modes of research, such as online research, computational research, literature reviews, writing, lab and field activities. Among these, lab activities were the most curtailed in June 2020, and field activities saw the lowest engagement throughout 2020 and the first quarter of 2021.

Graduate student research

Similar to undergraduate students, as of June 2020, field and lab research activities were the most curtailed, with less than half of departments reporting graduate students doing field work and two-thirds reporting lab research. However, by August 2020, over 80% of departments reported graduate students engaged in online research, computational research, literature reviews, writing, and lab and field work.

The transition from “should I be worried about this” to “you cannot go to the lab” happened very rapidly. In my case it was a benefit to have been in such an early stage of my degree because I talked with my advisor, and we decided to rapidly pivot to doing numerical simulation work in a similar space with the hope that we would then pair that with experimental work. Before things reopened, what happened is for a year and a half of the pandemic where I did not really have access to the lab and whatnot, I worked from home. I was doing the simulation work and I am very thankful that my advisor did numerical simulation. He was able to help me with that. I did not intentionally choose him because I wanted to do numerical simulation, but with his help that meant I could be very flexible. He had access to the tools and let me go to work very quickly. As the pandemic started to progress or regress, our department outlined plans for people to get into labs and work. A lot of that had to be very solo. I had to wait because I was doing some of the experimental work that required the use of other facilities. There was this coordination issue where I would need to make sure I could be in one facility to do the things I needed to do and then be able to go to the other one. Coordinating between the different facilities was a little bit difficult to navigate. There was an added burden of any time I wanted to do lab work I could only go to the lab, and I had to commute. I could not go in, stay in my office, do whatever, eat lunch. I could not do any of that. I had to go in, do my lab work, come back, and that made the barrier to doing the lab work a lot higher, and so it was not until things were back in the office, and we were back full time where I would say got my footing better settled for doing the experimental lab work.

–graduate student

Links to relevant survey data charts

Active research by cohort (4-year institutions with graduate programs)

Active research by cohort (4-year institutions without graduate programs)

Research modes used by faculty (4-year institutions with graduate programs)

Research modes used by faculty (4-year institutions without graduate programs)

Research modes used by undergraduate students (4-year institutions with graduate programs)

Research modes used by undergraduate students (4-year institutions without graduate programs)

Research modes used by graduate students (4-year institutions with graduate programs)

Using technology as a bridge

The rapid transition to online work and learning environments during the pandemic led to various study cohorts making extensive use of different communication technology platforms to sustain their work, research, and learning activities. Throughout the pandemic, over two-thirds of all cohorts employed multiple communication and technology platforms for their activities. Zoom emerged as the most commonly used platform, with its usage reported by over three-quarters of the cohorts. Other frequently used platforms included Teams — particularly among non-academic geoscientists — and Canvas and Blackboard, which were predominantly used by academic cohorts. These findings underline the importance of these platforms as tools for communication and collaboration. Despite some variations among cohorts, Zoom and Teams maintained their popularity consistently across different groups.

Student research presentations

The pandemic led to various innovative uses of technology for communication, one of which was its use for senior capstone, thesis, or dissertation final presentations. In March 2021, over 90% of departments reported the use of live online presentations. However, by February 2022, this figure had dropped to just over a third. By this time, in-person presentations had become the primary mode of delivery, with over three-quarters of departments indicating this mode. Over the period, hybrid presentation formats — which combined in-person and online elements — experienced substantial growth. Their usage increased from just over a quarter of departments in March 2021 to two-thirds by February 2022. Pre-recorded presentations accompanied by live discussions were reported by just over a tenth of departments in March 2021, but by February 2022, this format had been phased out.

Student recruitment activities

Throughout the pandemic, communication emerged as a crucial factor, particularly for student recruitment efforts. Nearly three-quarters of departments reported increasing their communication with potential students during this period to assist in recruitment, underlining the value of personal interaction. Over half of these departments hosted virtual recruiting events, and a third ramped up their use of social media. Despite the circumstances, traditional methods like on-campus visits and in-person recruiting at conferences remained popular, being utilized by over half of the departments, particularly as pandemic restrictions began to ease. A small proportion of departments introduced virtual introductory courses as a means of attracting students to their majors. Furthermore, just over a third of departments implemented other recruitment strategies, such as limiting the number of seats in traditional introductory courses, introducing writing and critical thinking courses, enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion-related outreach activities, and offering more hands-on lab and field opportunities for students.

Student advising

Technology platforms played a crucial role in facilitating student advising throughout the pandemic. In June 2020, over three-quarters of faculty and students reported using online platforms for student advising meetings. This remained the primary meeting format until January 2022, and was still the second most common format by March 2022. The prevalence of phone-based meetings was relatively low throughout this period, as was the percentage of respondents who reported not advising or not having an advisor. Starting in April 2021, the percentage of faculty and students reporting in-person student advising meetings began to steadily increase, with many noting that these meetings were being held with pandemic-related restrictions. By February 2022, in-person meetings, both with and without restrictions, had become the most frequent format for student advising meetings. One-third of respondents reported no restrictions during these meetings, while just under half noted that meetings were being held with pandemic-related restrictions.

So as part of the freshman class that I taught, there's a requirement that every first-year student meet with their faculty for a little bit of time, and I did those meetings virtually during the pandemic. Now I've shifted my office hours to being flexible and they can either be virtual or in person, and when I do other things that require me to meet students, I always offer up the virtual option and I think more often than not they take me up on that. So I think that has increased the ability to meet with students one-on-one. Students are more willing to log on for five minutes and meet with me and ask me a question quickly as opposed to walking down to my office and going out of the building and that kind of stuff, even though we're very small campus. I do think that there is a little bit of a barrier that has been removed in that it's much easier to just click a few buttons and meet with someone because I've even taken meetings with students while they're in the library. So I'm assuming that they are working on it and they get stuck and they know it's my office hours and they'll just quickly virtually meet with me and ask a question. So I think that that's something I never would have considered doing pre-pandemic, but once it became a thing, it was a pretty easy change to make.

–academic faculty

Remote work and learning spaces

The transition to online working and learning environments necessitated a reconfiguration of work and learning spaces. Many people had to create dedicated spaces within their homes to meet their work, research, and learning needs. From November 2020 to March 2022, there was a general increase across all participants in the use of dedicated workspaces for remote work and learning, while the use of shared workspaces declined. Additionally, over half of the respondents reported acquiring additional hardware during this period. The acquisition of extra software applications and supplies was more common towards the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021 than in early 2022. Additionally, just under a third of respondents noted upgrading their internet connectivity during this time.

Different study cohorts adapted their remote work and learning environments in various ways. Among academic faculty, the use of dedicated workspaces declined from over 80% to just under three-quarters between November 2020 and March 2022. Shared workspace usage was low among faculty, with less than a third reporting its use. Around 60% of faculty reported using additional hardware for most of the period, but this declined to just over half by March 2022. The use of extra software applications and supplies, as well as internet connectivity upgrades, decreased over time.

For geoscience students, the use of dedicated workspaces increased substantially as the use of shared workspaces declined. The acquisition of additional hardware, supplies, and internet upgrades increased over the period. The use of additional software applications was more commonly reported by students towards the end of 2020 and Spring 2021 than in the rest of the period. Post-doctoral fellows most commonly adapted by using dedicated workspaces, followed by acquiring additional hardware. The use of shared workspaces and other adaptations varied throughout the period.

For non-academic geoscientists, the use of dedicated workspaces remained consistently high, while shared workspace usage declined. About half of the respondents reported acquiring additional hardware throughout the period, but the use of additional software applications and supplies slightly declined. Internet upgrades remained steady, with about 30% reporting this adaptation throughout the period.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Communication technology platforms used by survey participants in 2020

Presentation mode of senior capstone, thesis, or dissertation

Student recruitment strategies used during the COVID-19 pandemic

Format of student advising meetings

Remote work and learning adaptations during the pandemic

Remote work adaptations during the pandemic (academic faculty)

Remote work adaptations during the pandemic (post-docs)

Remote learning adaptations during the pandemic (students)

Remote work adaptations during the pandemic (non-academic geoscientists)

Strategies for operational continuity

From 2020 to 2022, geoscience employers modified their strategies in response to the pandemic to ensure operational continuity. Remote work flexibility was a primary strategy throughout this period, utilized by 41% of employers in 2020 and decreasing to 31% by 2022. Shortly after the pandemic's onset, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published guidelines for industries considered essential for maintaining the nation's critical functions, many of which included primary industries within which geoscientists work. These guidelines enabled workers within essential industries to continue operating during community restrictions that kept non-essential businesses closed or at reduced capacity. In 2020, 43% of employers reported that they were classified in an essential industry.

Other adaptations implemented by employers throughout the pandemic included changes in health protocols, which were reported by a quarter to a third of employers during this period. Increased communication was reported by a tenth of employers during 2020 when responses to the evolving pandemic situation were particularly fluid. Furthermore, just over a tenth of employers reported altering their financial strategy in 2020, and this number declined over the following years. Employers also adopted a range of other strategies, such as changes in workflows, providing more flexibility for employees, supporting employees' mental health, assisting employees with children at home, renegotiating leases to reduce the physical footprint due to decreased office space usage, and increasing the use of virtual meetings as a substitute for in-person gatherings.

We did a lot with additional leave options, additional pay options, additional support, trying to be as flexible as we could encouraging supervisors to be as flexible as they could be. So you know, childcare was a huge issue, and instead of having them drop out of the workforce, we gave them 20 hours of free time a pay period right for close to a year. We phased it. I can't remember exactly when it dialed back and so for people especially women who would have dropped out of the workforce. Instead, we just gave them a little bit of breathing room. So we said here's 10 hours a week. It's a significant amount, right? That's 25% of your time and it was not just for women, I'm just saying you know there's the statistics that women drop out of the workforce for childcare more often than men, right? And plenty of parents took it and elder care — actually it was eligible for both. So those sorts of flexibilities, I think, allowed us to retain a lot of employees and allowing people to do what we did this the split parenting shift, right? So work six hours and then take a break and then work two hours after the kids go to bed right? We encouraged that if it worked for you and your family and your supervisor was okay with it and you were still being productive and working all of your hours, absolutely, and I think those things made a difference.

–geoscience employer

Staffing strategies

Human capital is essential to ensure operational continuity, and during the pandemic, employers' expectations for ongoing staffing for both permanent and contract staff remained strong. In terms of permanent staffing, over half of employers expected no changes in staffing levels throughout the period, while between a quarter and a third anticipated increased staffing. During the third quarter of 2020, a quarter of employers expected a decrease in permanent staffing levels. However, by the end of 2022, employers reported expectations of either no change or increased staffing, with no mention of decreases. Trends in temporary staffing expectations varied. Employers expecting a decrease reached a peak in the second quarter of 2020, with a quarter of employers anticipating a drop. This expectation declined to no mention of decreases by the end of 2022. Throughout the period, about a fifth of employers reported expecting increases in temporary or contract staff, while the majority anticipated no changes in staffing.

Work and research strategies

In response to the pandemic, individuals pivoted their work and research activities to ensure as much progress as possible despite the challenges. From June 2020 to March 2022, various groups within the geoscience community utilized a range of methods to continue their work and research. For academic faculty, literature review and writing were the most prevalent activities, reported by over three-quarters of faculty. Online research also saw a substantial increase from just over half to nearly three-quarters of faculty. About 40% of faculty noted computational research through 2020, which increased in 2021 to just over half. Lab-based activities and fieldwork were reported by less than a third of faculty during 2020 but steadily increased through Spring 2021, with about half reporting lab research activities and a third reporting field activities.

When the pandemic hit, field travel, international and local, and all the lab stuff shut down for me. It was not until November that we were allowed to start going back in, very minimally with one person a day in the whole facility. We had 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. Things slowed down for me a lot because I had started my project about a year and a couple of months prior to the shutdown. I had enough time to go out into the field, collective bunch of stuff, and start working on it, but not actually get any data yet. It really brought a bunch of my field and data projects to a screeching halt. That is when I had to think about what else to do. There was obviously other stuff for those projects that was background. Oh, let me gather more data and read some more papers. Let me make some maps in GIS, things like that. But it was all kind of cursory. It was not like that helped me move the project along. It was more like I just was waiting. So instead, I tried to push everything into the modeling side of projects that I do and so I changed everything up and focused hard on a lot of the modeling stuff.

–recent graduate

Post-doctoral fellows most frequently cited literature review, writing, and computational research as their main modes of work and research from 2020 through 2022. The use of online research peaked in Summer 2020 with three-quarters of post-doctoral fellows utilizing this method, but this declined to about a third by September 2020, only to gradually increase through 2021 to about three-quarters. Field work was sporadically reported by a small percentage of post-doctoral fellows throughout the period, while lab-based activities increased from just under one-fifth of post-doctoral fellows in June 2020 to just under two-thirds by May 2021 as restrictions eased, and then declined to one-fifth of post-doctoral fellows reporting this mode of research in March 2022.

Most non-academic geoscientists engaged in literature review, writing, and online research throughout the pandemic. Computational research activities remained consistent, involving nearly one-third of non-academic geoscientists from June 2020 through March 2021, after which the percentage noting this mode increased steadily to over half by August 2021. Lab-based activities and field work also saw slight increases over the period, reported by one-fifth and just over 40% of respondents by March 2022.

For K–12 faculty, online research was the primary modality reported, followed by literature review, writing, and lab-based activities. Computational research had low engagement through 2020 but increased to over half of faculty reporting its usage by Fall 2021. Field activities were reported by one-tenth to one-fifth of faculty over most of the period.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Expectation for ongoing permanent staffing levels

Expectation for ongoing temporary / contract staffing levels

Strategies for addressing pandemic impacts

Mode of work and research activities (academic faculty)

Mode of work and research activities (K–12 faculty)

Mode of work and research activities (post-docs)

Mode of work and research activities (non-academic geoscientists)

Flexible approaches

The pandemic ushered in a new era of flexible work arrangements, with remote work becoming the norm. As a result, the geographic distribution of employees relative to their employer's offices evolved over time. In 2022, a clear trend emerged among geoscience employers: more and more employees consolidated in their home states. The percentage of employers reporting that over half of their employees resided in the same state as their company increased from over three-quarters to a full 100% between the second and fourth quarters of 2022. Throughout 2022, only one-third of employers reported that less than half of their workforce was located in neighboring states. Furthermore, the percentage of employers indicating that up to half of their employees resided in further afar declined from slightly over half to just over a third. Less than a fifth of employers reported having employees based in locations outside the US.

The quick shift to remote work at the start of the pandemic opened many opportunities around the possibility of being able to work from anywhere. This flexibility in location allowed employees to rethink their finances and living situations. One of many potential upsides was the ability to move from an area with a higher cost of living one with a lower cost of living, including across the U.S. or overseas. However, the repercussions, especially for smaller employers, of having employees in multiple states and/or international locations included added financial burdens with respect to state and international tax laws and other human resource regulations. Whether or not these repercussions factored into the reinstatement of in-office work policies or resulted in employers hiring only within a commutable distance to the office (i.e., within state or in neighboring states), is unknown, but may factor into this pattern of geographic consolidation of employees over time. Another factor at play may include the lack of in-person work interactions with permanent remote work and the desire of employees to be in the office at least part of the time for social interactions and focused in-person collaborative activities.

Work locations of employees

The nature of workplaces evolved significantly during the pandemic, transitioning from predominantly remote settings to a blend of remote and in-office work. In the third quarter of 2020, three-quarters of employers reported that over half of their employees were working remotely, while a third of employers indicated that over half of their workforce was working part-time in the office. However, by the end of 2022, this landscape had shifted: 30% of employers reported that more than half of their employees were working full-time in the office, 10% reported over half of their workforce was part-time in the office, and 60% indicated over half of their workforce remained remote. The situation of employees working in laboratories, field sites, and at client locations or remote offices also changed over the course of the pandemic. The percentage of employers reporting that over half of their employees worked in labs rose from less than 10% in the third quarter of 2020 to a quarter of employers by the second quarter of 2022, before dropping back to less than 10% by the end of 2022. Between a third and a quarter of employers reported that most of their employees worked at field sites throughout the period. The percentage of employers stating that most of their employees worked at client sites or remote offices remained relatively low throughout the entire period.

Workplace policies

Throughout the pandemic, employers fluctuated in their office policies in response to the unfolding situation. More than half were reevaluating their policies in August 2021. This trend dipped in the fall, only to rebound in December 2021 and January 2022, coinciding with a surge in COVID-19 cases attributed to the spread of the Omicron variant. From September 2021 to January 2022, over 60% of private sector employers and governmental agencies reported implementing remote-first work policies.

By January 2022, just over 60% of higher education institutions also adopted this approach. Although remote-first work policies remained popular in the private sector throughout 2022, they fell steadily among governmental agencies to 50% by September, before bouncing back to 60% by December. Higher education institutions showed significant variability in their remote-first work policies, peaking at 70% adoption in July 2022 but dropping to just over 40% by the year's end.

From February 2020 to December 2022, remote work policies were offered by over 80% of employers, while in-office work was offered by 60% to 80% of employers throughout the period. In June 2020, half of employers offered field work policies, and this increased to 80% by the end of 2022. Lab work policies increased from 40% of employers in 2020 and 2021 to nearly half of employers during 2022. Shared workspace policies, which were offered by less than one-tenth of employers through 2020 and 2021, increased to between 10% and 30% through the end of 2022. Over the same period, employers shifted towards more flexible work arrangements, with an increase in employers offering both permanent and limited remote and in-office work policies. In addition, by December 2022, 60% of employers offered either only permanent remote work, or both permanent and limited remote work options.

Coming out of the pandemic we developed a hybrid and remote working policy. While we expect that employees will be in the office as much as possible, we do have a few exceptions for some remote workers. You know, they're not tethered to an office, be that they moved elsewhere or, you know, because they're great employees and we don't want to lose them, or we do have a hybrid program where we expect 60% of the hours to be in the office for that connection because we are collaborative discipline. So, coming out of the pandemic, we saw this as a firm policy.

–geoscience employer

The pandemic made us realize that we can do large pieces of our jobs remotely. So there have been some longer-term changes that I think are going to be net positives for us because the pandemic forced us to rethink the way we go about our business. Our policy is as long as the work is getting done and as long as employees are getting their hours of time completed, we really don't worry too much about the actual timing. We've gone to this flex scheduling model, and the only thing we ask is that employees propose the schedule to us in advance and that for the first month they follow that schedule. And if we find that it's not working, then we modify it after we take some time to see how that schedule works. And if we find that it's working, then let's just keep doing it because it works. The employee is happier. The work is getting done. I found that productivity went up during the pandemic and part of that was because people weren't stuck in traffic for an hour. They were happier. When they got frustrated, they could pet the dog or go stand outside in the backyard, you know, at their house and sit in the recliner for 15 minutes and take their break there and productivity for us went up.

–geoscience employer

The workplace policies offered by academic departments, influenced by the unique demands of academic research and teaching activities, differed from those of geoscience employers during the pandemic. From April 2021 to December 2022, most academic departments provided options for employees to work in-office, remotely, in labs, or at field sites. Except for a drop to 45% in September 2021, between 70% and 80% of departments consistently offered remote work policies throughout the pandemic. Lab and field work policies were also prevalent among departments, while shared workspace policies were less commonly offered.

With the resumption of in-person classes, the proportion of departments offering both permanent and limited remote work policies declined sharply. By September 2021, only a tenth of departments maintained such options. By December 2022, departments were only offering limited remote work policies. Over the same period, an uptick was observed in the number of departments offering a mix of permanent and limited in-office work, with over half offering this approach by December 2022, while the remainder offered only permanent in-office work.

Re-evaluation of physical office and teaching spaces

In response to the pandemic, academic departments and employers not only adapted their workplace policies but also evaluated the active usage of their office, research, and teaching spaces. In May 2021, the majority of geoscience academic departments reported lower utilization of all spaces, including offices, research, and teaching areas, compared to pre-pandemic levels. By November 2021, however, the majority of these departments reported a return to pre-pandemic usage levels across all types of spaces. Similarly, geoscience employers observed a gradual recovery in office space usage from November 2020 to November 2022. By November 2022, just over half of the employers reported usage levels comparable to those before the pandemic.

Links to relevant survey data charts

Employee distribution by location

Employee distribution by work environment (lab, field, and client/remote sites)

Employee distribution by work environment (office and remote work locations)

Active usage of office, research, and teaching spaces relative to before the pandemic (academic departments)

Active usage of office space relative to before the pandemic (geoscience employers)

Employers offering remote-first work policies

In-office work policies available to employees (academic departments)

In-office work policies available to employees (geoscience employers)

Remote work policies available to employees (academic departments)

Remote work policies available to employees (geoscience employers)

Workplace policies available to employees (academic departments)

Workplace policies available to employees (geoscience employers)

Re-evaluation of office policies due to the current pandemic situation

Providing support

During the pandemic, supportive measures were crucial in maintaining business operations, academic programs, and work and learning at all levels. Financial aid benefited just over a third of employers in 2020, decreasing to just under a fifth by early 2022. Dependence on governmental assistance generally decreased from 29% of employers reporting assistance in the third quarter of 2020 to less than 10% at the start of 2022, with a temporary increase in the second quarter of 2021. Non-governmental financial aid peaked in the third quarter of 2021, with one-fifth of employers acknowledging receipt of this assistance before dropping to less than 10% at the beginning of 2022.

We basically tried to hold on to everybody and keep paying salaries. We got PPP monies both years. That it was available because we thought there was our production responsibility to the company and our employees to take what was offered. So you know we took advantage of a program that was intended to keep our business viable and healthy and it did. It for sure helped. There's no question about it. I'm not saying we would have gone out of business, but it wasn't clear whether we were gonna go out of business or not. So, the PPP money made it for sure that we were not going to go out of business. And once you have that, it kind of gave you more options because you knew kind of what you were dealing with so. And at the end of the day, if we, you know we had extra PPP money and you know we distributed that that some of that to an employees for sure because you know our thought was that this was also intended as stimulus right so you know we get bonuses to our employees and we also took an opportunity to sort of, you know, tool up our business under the thought that that was in the best interest of the economy as well and our company.

–geoscience employer

Promotion and tenure guideline changes

In response to the pandemic, over two-thirds of academic departments made changes to their promotion and tenure policies. The most frequently implemented change was extending the promotion clock, which was adopted by just over half of the institutions. Other modifications included the option to exclude Spring 2020 evaluations and to incorporate pandemic impact statements in the tenure review package. Although these changes were accessible to faculty, over three-quarters of faculty study participants did not utilize them. Among the 13% of faculty who did, the most frequently noted options that were utilized included submitting a pandemic teaching impact statement, extending the promotion clock, and excluding Spring 2020 evaluations.

Hiring and onboarding changes

In response to the widespread adoption of remote work during the pandemic, employers adapted their hiring and onboarding protocols to better accommodate new hires. More than a third of employers modified their training methods for new hires, while just under a third revised their onboarding processes. Changes to hiring and onboarding were primarily focused on converting in-person activities, such as training, onboarding workflows, and interviewing to virtual formats.

Support for remote workers

Beyond alterations to promotion and tenure policies, over 90% of academic departments provided support for remote employees in 2020 and 2021 primarily through logistical and IT support and training. By 2022, however, only three-quarters of departments reported providing some form of support for remote working employees. Financial support for remote employees fell sharply from a third of departments to less than 5% over the same period. The provision of logistical support and training and IT support also decreased from over 80% of departments offering this type of assistance for remote workers in 2020 to just over half of the departments in 2022. Furthermore, a little over a tenth of departments required remote employees to use their own equipment in 2022.

Support for remote working employees was also provided by employers, although the percentage of employers providing this support declined slightly to three-quarters of employers over the given period. Financial support for remote work activities was reported by less than one-fifth of employers throughout the pandemic. Mirroring practices in academic departments, slightly more than a tenth of employers in 2022 required remote workers to use their own equipment. However, in contrast to academic departments, employers increased their training and IT support, moving from just over a quarter to nearly half of all employers providing this support, despite a slight decrease in logistical support to just under two-thirds.

Everybody could take their laptop and monitor home and their mouse and keyboard. We draw the line like we are not going to buy you a desk, and we cannot pay for your Wi-Fi to be upgraded. That is part of your part of the bargain in the remote work agreement. It is optional and it is the same as our teleworker agreement. By signing the telework agreement request as an employee like you are saying I have a good place to work at home that does not have children in it, it is not distracting and like I can focus. That is part of that contract on the other side. As the employer is required to provide a workspace for you where you can do work, if you as the employee want to ask for the privilege of working at home, you must provide some of that. We buy printers and get that kind of stuff too if there is a reason for the employee to be printing stuff.

–geoscience employer

Declines in support for remote working activities were also noted by survey participants between 2020 and 2022, from over three-quarters to just over two-thirds. Just over a tenth of participants reported that employees were required to use their own devices in 2022, while throughout the pandemic, financial support for remote work activities was reported by about one-tenth of participants. Additionally, both logistical and training and IT support diminished to under half over the same timeframe.

For various study cohorts, there was a consistent reduction in support from 2020 to 2022. Among academic faculty, support was noted by over three-quarters of faculty in 2020, and this declined to just over half by 2022. Financial support was available for a tenth of faculty in 2020 but fell to less than 5% by 2022. Both logistical and training and IT support experienced considerable declines, with less than half of the faculty receiving this assistance in 2022. Post-doctoral fellows also reported diminished support for remote work, with only a third reporting support by 2022, down from half in 2020. While financial aid remained minimal for remote work activities and logistical support decreased substantially, training and IT support increased over the period, with a fifth of fellows noting this support in 2022.

Non-academic geoscientists experienced a slight decrease in support throughout the pandemic, but by 2022, over three-quarters reported support for remote work activities. Financial support was reported by about a tenth of this group throughout the period. Logistical support was acknowledged by three-quarters of non-academic geoscientists in 2020, declining to two-thirds by 2022. However, there was an increase in the percentage reporting training and IT support over the period, from 36% to 44%. K–12 faculty witnessed a drastic drop in support, from over three-quarters to just over a third during the pandemic. There were also substantial reductions in logistical and training and IT support, with less than a quarter of faculty noting this support in 2022.