Terminology in ecology and evolutionary biology disproportionately harms marginalized groups

<b>Abstract</b><br/><p>The discipline of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has long grappled with issues of inclusivity and representation, particularly for individuals with systematically excluded and marginalized backgrounds or identities. For example, significant representation disparities still persist that disproportionately affect women and gender minorities; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; individuals with disabilities; and people who are LGBTQIA+. Recent calls for action have urged the EEB community to directly address issues of representation, inclusion, justice, and equity. One aspect of this endeavor is to examine the use of EEB’s discipline-specific language and terminology, which may have the potential to perpetuate unjust systems and isolate marginalized groups. Through a mixed-methods survey, we examined how members of the EEB community perceive discipline-specific terminology, including how they believe it can be harmful and which terms they identified as problematic. Of the 795 survey respondents, we found that almost half agreed that there are harmful terms in EEB, and that many individuals from marginalized groups responded that they have been harmed by such terminology. Most of the terms identified as harmful relate to race, ethnicity, and immigration; sex and gender; geopolitical hierarchies; and historical violence. Our findings suggest there is an urgent need for EEB to confront and critically reassess its discipline-specific terminology. By identifying harmful terms and their impacts, our study represents a crucial first step toward dismantling deeply rooted exclusionary structures in EEB. We encourage individuals, communities, and institutions to use these findings to reevaluate language used in disciplinary research, teaching and mentoring, manuscripts, and professional societies. Rectifying current harms in EEB will help promote a more just and inclusive discipline.</p>