In preparation for the 2013 Solar and Space Physics Decadal Survey process, the Education and Workforce Working Group developed a survey of the profession. The survey was implemented by the American Institute of Physics and funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The survey request was sent to 2560 unique email addresses gathered from various professional groups: AGU’s Space Physics and Aeronomy Section (SPA, the largest group, with 1,792 unique names); AAS’s Solar Physics Division (SPD); Space Weather Week conference attendee lists, and NSF PI lists. The survey received 1305 responses (51% response rate), of which 1171 indicated that they considered themselves in the field of Solar, Space and Upper Atmospheric Physics (SSUAP) and currently work and reside in the US. If one makes the assumption (probably crude) that the 51% response rate applies across the board, then one can estimate that the profession comprises a total of approximately 1171/0.51–2300 space physicists in the US.

Figure 1 summarizes the basic demographics of this SSUAP population. In 2011 the gender split was 83% men, 17% women. When considering race/ethnicity it is useful to compare the respondents who obtained their doctorate degrees before vs after 2000. The percentage of White respondents drops from 83% with earlier doctorates to 69% with later doctorates. Meanwhile, the percentage of Asian or Asian Americans rose from 12% to 24%. The percentages of Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino respondents made small increases in percentage of doctorates from 1% to 2% and 1%–3% respectively.

A few decades ago most people in the SSUAP fields came through graduate programs in physics departments. Physics is still the most common (62% of respondents) undergraduate degree. Figure 1 shows that since 2000, more doctorates were in the specialized fields of Space Physics and of Solar Physics. While AIP keeps track of numbers of doctorate degrees in physics, it is hard to keep track of trends in sub-fields unless surveys are repeated to specific areas such as SSUAP. A more effective approach would be to make SandSP a formal dissertation research area or subfield in the NSF Annual Survey of Earned Doctorates. This would provide tracking of PhD production and data to assess the health of graduate programs. (See National Science Foundation, Survey of Earned Doctorates, available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/ ).

The SSP2013 Decadal Survey included an Education and Workforce Working Group that evaluated not just the 2011 SSUAP Workforce Survey (White et al., 2011a) but also carried out separate studies of such things as PhD production rate and the job market (via job advertisements) over the previous 10 years (see Appendix D of the SSP2013 report).

Figure 2 (left) shows the trends in PhD production in solar and space physics (in Canada and the US) as well as the number of job advertisements for post-doctoral, research scientist and faculty positions (from Moldwin et al., 2013). The Moldwin et al. (2013) study showed a total of “475 PhDs were produced at 76 different institutions. The top 10 institutions produced 238 (or 50 percent) of the total. Thirty of the 76 institutions produced only 1 solar and space physics PhD during the decade.” Prior to 2007 about ∼5 PhDs per year were produced in the sub-fields of Heliophysics, Space Plasmas and Solar Physics, while ∼12 PhDs per year were produced in Magnetospheres and Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Magnetosphere Coupling (ITM). Between 2007 and 2010 the number of ITM degrees shot up to ∼25 while Solar Physics increased by about a factor of 2.

The right side of Figure 2 shows the number of unique positions advertised for US institutions in the AGU-SPA and AAS-SPD newsletters. These numbers were gathered in a study by Moldwin et al. (2013) who reported “the field—though small—is vibrant and growing. However, there is concern that the number of positions, especially faculty positions, is not keeping track with the growth of the field. Continuation of the NSF Faculty Development in the Space Sciences program would directly address this concern”.

The big question is what has happened in past decade? Have the trends shown in the two plots of Figure 2 persisted or changed? These are questions for the Status of the Profession Panel of the next Decadal Survey.

For the recent NASEM study on Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (2022), hereafter National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a, demographic data were compiled for four of the divisions of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD): Heliophysics, Astrophysics, Planetary Science and Earth Sciences. (The fifth division, Biological and Physical Sciences, was not included because it does not generate satellite missions, the focus of the study). Figure 3 shows that workforce data are pretty similar across these four science divisions and illustrates how these fields are predominantly white and male. Heliophysics has a notably low percentage of women (17%), half the representation in Earth and in Planetary Sciences. When considering race/ethnicity, all four divisions have similarly very low percentages of non-White populations.

Figure 4 compares gender demographics data for these four NASA divisions with (left) the percentage of women shown in workforce data across US, for all STEM fields and specifically in physical sciences. On the right the data for the four divisions come from the workforce surveys (Figure 3), all research proposal submissions through NASA’s online NSPIRES platform, and proposed missions with women Principal Investigators (PIs). The involvement of women in Planetary and Earth Sciences is comparable to the overall STEM workforce (39%), while Astrophysics and Heliophysics workforces (perhaps not surprisingly) are comparable to the national workforce in physical science (23%), as are all four percentages of women submitting research proposals to NSPIRES. When it comes to women PIs submitting mission proposals, only Planetary Science has a percentage comparable the national physical science workforce while the other 3 divisions have much lower (5%–8%) representation. Clearly, the workforce of these four NASA SMD divisions have a way to go to reach gender parity.

As discussed in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a Advancing DEIA study, as well as the Decadal Surveys, the “pinch point” in the diversity of careers in the physical sciences comes at the high school to college stages, well before graduate school and doctorate degrees. Focusing on physics (the primary subject underlying most of space sciences), analysis of AIP data by Hodapp and Hazari (2015) shows in Figure 5 how at high school the participation of women in physics classes is close to parity with men. The participation plummets to ∼20% at college entrance. While the total numbers along the career path to professor decrease drastically, the participation of women remains around the ∼20% level, suggesting the career path is not differentially leaky for women.

This major drop of the participation early in college by women-and racial/ethnic minorities-is consistent with studies of when and why students switch out of STEM majors, as discussed at length in the 1997 book Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). The TAL study illustrates the “iceberg effect” that many of the issues that caused student to switch out of classes were also experienced by the students who persisted, emphasizing that these issues need to be addressed even if departments are willing to let a significant fraction of students switch their major. Twenty-four years later, the follow-on 2019 book Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education (Seymour and Hunter, 2019) found, through many interviews of students and teachers at six different universities, that the same factors continued to affect students’ decisions to switch majors. Briefly stated, these factors are:

• Poor teaching in introductory math, physics, chemistry classes (e.g., disorganized, disinterested, poor delivery of content (“chalk talk”), unwilling to help, etc.). Across persisting and switching students, 78% expressed frustration with poor teaching.

While more women than men switched majors, the difference was much reduced over 24 years (perhaps partly related to changes in culture and parental support). For students of color, given greater emphasis in TALR, the primary issues were poor high school preparation, difficulties making the transition to college, the competitive nature of STEM classes, and being discouraged by getting low grades. We return to these issues and their potential remedies in a later section.

Meanwhile, let us consider how the total numbers and demographics of physics bachelor degrees have varied over time. In the top of Figure 6 we show total numbers and below is the percentage awarded to women, Hispanic Americans and African Americans. The total number of bachelor’s degrees (summing all subjects) has risen steadily since the 50 s from ¼ million to just over 2 million. By contrast, the number of physics degrees oscillated around ∼4500 ± 20% for about 50 years and then proceeded to climb, at a faster rate than the All Bachelor’s slope, to a peak of ∼9300 in 2019 (the 2020 and 2021 numbers may be affected by COVID). The lowest curve on the top plot shows the total number of women getting bachelor’s degrees in physics, steadily rising from 1980 to 2020, but not as steeply as the men or total. The net result of the flatter curve for the women means that fraction of physics bachelor’s degrees awarded to women actually dropped between ∼2000 and ∼2013 before kicking back up again. At the same time the percentage of undergraduate physics degrees awarded to Hispanic Americans has been steadily rising over the past 30 years, reaching nearly 10% (still below the overall percentage in the US population of 19%). The number of African Americans decreased over most of the past 30 years (∼5%–3%), perhaps slowly rising back to 4%, well below the 12.5% of the US population.

Turning to graduate students, Figure 7 shows the total numbers of physics degrees between 1975 and 2020. The peak number of about 1900 doctorates (in 2018) corresponds to a little under 1 in 5 of the 9300 physics bachelor’s degrees. However Figure 7 also shows that since the mid-90 s about half of the physics doctorates have been awarded to people born outside the US (while only ∼20% of physics bachelor’s degrees were awarded to non-US students). This means that only about 1 in 7440/950 = 7.8 of US students getting physics bachelor’s degrees went on to get PhDs in physics. The total number of doctorates awarded to Black/African Americans has hovered around 10–20 while the number of Hispanic/Latinx physics doctorates has increased over the past decade from ∼15 to over 40. Note that these numbers are far below their representation in the US population as a whole which would currently be 143 (14% in US) for Black/African Americans and 195 (19%) for Hispanic/Latinx.

The story with women getting physics doctorates may be more complicated. The total numbers have been increasing steadily over the past 45 years up to an annual rate of ∼400 per year (about 21% of the total). But, as we see in the next section, a disproportionate number of these may be non-US.

Obtaining numbers for physics degrees in the US is hard enough—but getting numbers for other countries is even harder. Ivie and Guo (2006) reported data on degrees awarded to women in about twenty countries for 1999 and 2000 shown in various ways in Figure 8. First (top) we show the total numbers of physics bachelor and doctorate degrees. Readers may not be surprised to see the US produce the highest numbers. But when these numbers are plotted per million people of each country’s total population, the US slips way down the league table of per capita degree production. Even more surprising is the plot of percentage of physics degrees awarded to women. These data are now 2 decades old and the current numbers could be quite different. But the data get one thinking about possible reasons why each country sits where it is in these plots. What are the cultures and policies that drive high/low per capita production of physics degrees or high/low percentage awarded to women? Are a significant number of women getting physics doctorates in the US coming from the countries that award a higher fraction of their bachelor degrees to women?

Comparing the US career paths (Figure 5; Figure 6; Figure 7) with demographics from a United Kingdom survey by the Royal Astronomical Society, 2017 (published in 2017 and summarized by Massey et al., 2017) we see that the participation of women in Solar System science in the United Kingdom is similar to the US while in astronomy there is a steeper drop with rank. Students pursuing PhDs in the United Kingdom have similarly exceptionally poor non-white representation. While the permanent staff and graduate students were largely British (73% and 69% respectively), only 48% of post-docs were from the United Kingdom. The 33% of post-docs from the European Union (EU) may drop following the British withdrawal from the EU.

The international data from Ivie and Guo (2006) are limited in their coverage. Their paper says “To be included, countries had to provide appropriate data from reliable statistical agencies”. A couple countries that are notably absent in Figure 8 are India and China. In fact, over the past 20 years, science and engineering education in China and India have taken off (see top plot in Figure 9). Moreover, China’s expenditure in RandD is also sharply rising (see bottom plot in Figure 9). The three factors of i) US’s low per capita production of bachelor degrees in STEM degrees; ii) the high fraction of US doctorates awarded to students born outside the US; and iii) the steep rise of production of STEM doctorates outside the US, has caught policymakers’ attention. The 2022 report on The State of US Science and Engineering: Science and Engineering Indicators from the National Science Board (2022) notes:

They also show a chart that illustrates the US share of world-wide RandD expenditure decreasing between 2000 and 2019 from 36% to 28%. Over the same period, the share of China increased from 4% to 22%. Hence, a key takeaway of the report is:

A report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2020, The Perils of Complacency: America at a Tipping Point in Science and Engineering is even blunter. One of their key messages is:

This report (from a committee co-chaired by Norm Augustine and Neal Lane), including many graphs, presents the case that:

These reports present the workforce situation. Next we consider what actions they recommend be taken to change things.

Each NASEM study presents multiple recommendations in their reports (usually lengthy). We highlight here some of the recommendations related to workforce issues. First we consider the NASEM Decadal surveys in space sciences.

The SSP2013 recommendations were primarily focused on research but they also recommended further hands-on spaceflight experience (through sub-orbital flights and Cubesats), financial support for graduate students and expanding summer schools. The survey committee recommended implementation of a new, integrated, multiagency initiative (DRIVE—Diversify, Realize, Integrate, Venture, Educate) to develop more fully and use more effectively the many experimental and theoretical assets at NASA, NSF, and other agencies. The Educate component entails Educate, Empower, and Inspire the Next-Generation of Space Researchers. To date there have been 9 Step 1 funded DRIVE projects that were down-selected to 3 currently-funded DRIVE projects.

Much of solar and space physics involves physics of plasmas. The community of plasma scientists in the US carried out a decadal survey that primarily addresses issues of funding and organization of research but they also recognize the need for enhancing education and diversity of their workforce (Plasma Science: Enabling Technology, Sustainability, Security, and Exploration, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021):

The Astro2021 report contained a substantial component on what they called Foundations of the Profession, including seven recommendations related to education and enhancing workforce diversity and climate, several of which gave suggested funding levels. These recommendations are to fund programs to diversify faculty and the research workforce, train undergraduate, graduate students and post-docs, as well as systematically gather demographic data and ensure that relevant organizations have policies that address harassment and discrimination. We highlight the following recommendation for which they recommend funding of $1M each by NSF, NASA and DOE:

The Planet2023 report included a chapter on the State of the Profession which also gave seven recommendations for how demographics and climate of the profession should be improved. While the Planet2023 recommendations did not include specific funding levels, the report did point out the reduction in NASA funding to the extended community for outreach activities:

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a study was charged with addressing the issue of diversity of the leadership of space missions but realized that considerable effort needs to be put into early career stages. Here are a couple (of 15) recommendations that support early involvement in missions:

In parallel with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a study of mission leadership, NASA commissioned a study of Foundations of a Healthy and Vital Research Community for NASA Science (hereafter National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022b) that looked into ways NASA could evaluate the impact of their space science programs on the research community. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022b’s first recommendation is to gather key data to track trends in who and where gets funded:

The final recommendation involved supporting mentoring programs working with MSIs as well as with professional organizations:

The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future presents a bold target for enhancing the US STEM workforce as a whole and recommend these 3 actions:

While these actions may seem expensive, the report shows that such actions are key for the US economy. The 2020 Perils of Complacency report follows up:

Enough of these high-level viewpoints, what can we do to fix the problems locally?

To address the main factors that drive students to switch out of STEM majors (listed above), strategies need to be made at the departmental or institutional level. Bradforth et al. (2015) set out in a 3-page Nature some strategies from the bottom-up (for faculty) to top-down (for institutions) to enhance science education. We reproduce in Figure 10 their graphic (called a Sankey diagram) that illustrates for the University of California Davis (UCD) the flow of students from the subjects they choose on entry to their outcomes 6 years later. In contrast to other STEM disciplines like biology or social sciences, physical sciences were loosing ∼90% of students arriving at UCD with an interest in those fields (2007–2013). Drawing on Bradforth et al. (2015), the TALR book, and personal experience, here are a some strategies.

• Regularly repeat to class and individual students “You can do this. We will help you pass the class—that’s the most important thing—so you can do what you want in your career”.

If you are interested in researching how to improve undergraduate education in STEM, there’s an NSF program called Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) under the Directorate for STEM Education which

This could be an opportunity to collaborate with a local group at an education or science department with faculty and/or researchers who are involved in education research.

The 2011 USSAP workforce survey showed “a steady increase in the proportion of undergraduate students participating in scientific research outside class assignments, with over three-fourths of the recent (2000+) bachelor’s degree recipients report having done so” (White et al., 2011a). Undergraduate research experiences comprise traditional summer REUs (for groups of students) as well as individual projects, and are shown to enhance retention of STEM majors, particularly URM students (e.g., Russell et al., 2007). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a report made a finding that:

All three Decadal Surveys made similar findings. While NASA and NSF do fund summer REU programs (and institutions are encouraged to apply, perhaps teaming with nearby MSIs or community colleges), there is also great value in part-time research projects during the semester. Solar and Space Physics researchers are encouraged, either individually or as a coalition of colleagues, to seek support (e.g., institutional or a grant supplement) to involve undergraduates in their research, perhaps forming a collaboration with a local college. Indeed, such efforts do take time away from one’s own research, and institutions need to recognize the value of researchers getting involved in mentoring students doing authentic research.

Much less attention has been paid to graduate education, maybe because it is perceived to be less formal and the nature of a student’s graduate work is “up to the adviser”. But some relatively recent studies are worth reading. First, there are a couple books by Julie Posselt (2016, 2020) about the graduate admissions process. A major issue is that it is not straightforward to determine what are best predictors of success in graduate school. Several studies (including the Decadal Surveys; Posselt, 2014; Posselt, 2016; Posselt et al., 2017) have described how GRE scores are not reliable, particularly in developing a diverse population where other metrics are more effective. Quoting from Posselt’s 2016 book:

Posselt’s 2020 book summarizes the message on graduate programs in this succinct list of actions.

Careers in STEM—and Solar and Space Physics is no exception—are complicated. Contrary to common folklore, few take a direct path from high school to university UG to grad school to post-doc to faculty or permanent jobs. Most weave a path that involves bends, turns, side loops—as illustrated in Figure 11 (from Batchelor et al., 2021). Each person must find what works for themself. Institutions need to recognize the damage of stereotyping career paths and assist people along their different pathways.

The need for training and mentoring all along the braided pathways of careers in the space sciences was emphasized in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a report. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022a focuses on training of potential PIs of competed missions:

… but similar advice applies throughout the space sciences—in research areas (e.g., data analysis, modeling, theory) as we as the more operational side (e.g., space weather prediction). Summer schools, workshops and conferences are vital opportunities to meet broader communities of scientists with various backgrounds, to learn about different fields, approaches and careers, and to tap into resources provided by professional organizations (such as APS, AGU, AAS). The larger conferences usually have booths where funding agencies display their programs, where you can ask the staff about opportunities such as post-doc, early-career, guest-investigator or participating scientist grants as well as find out about career opportunities at these agencies. Perhaps the simplest advice is to keep an open mind about potential careers, seek advice broadly, explore options, assess what extra skills are needed, and persist over bumps in the path.