John Henryism: The Impacts of Toxic Research Environments on Well-Being and Scientific Productivity

In the U.S., many traditionally excluded people in STEM disciplines have experienced racism, discrimination, bias, harassment, retaliation, bullying, unequal treatment, and isolation, both in academia and the non-academic workforce. This issue can be compounded in the field sciences (e.g., Earth and Space sciences or ESS) where there is often a requirement to conduct research in remote locations. A common consequence for many who experience both acute and/or prolonged toxicity are work-related health problems (physical, mental, relational, etc.), which increase stress, lead to exhaustion and impact productivity. The term “John Henryism” refers to a) the strategies that are developed to deal with the toxicity and b) the cost of all these strategies on the individual.

The STEM enterprise should be concerned about how John Henryism might be impacting scientific productivity and certainly in ESS where field research can be critical to career success. In many forms, John Henryism could negatively impact the socialization of incoming students, alter the trajectories of early career scientists and ultimately diminish the development of the 21st century STEM workforce. Identifying common experiences is a key first step to characterizing this issue in the context of the ESS. Once characterized, the following approaches could be worthy areas of investigation to address issues related to John Henryism: 1) combat isolation in order to network affected individuals, 2) bring assessment and research to the forefront to focus on the short and long-term impacts, particularly the health impacts, of STEM climate on traditionally excluded groups in academia and the workforce, 3) encourage allyship to create more supportive and inclusive research and learning spaces, and 4) identify mechanisms to strengthen existing efforts aimed at increasing the retention of traditionally excluded individuals in STEM.