This exploratory pilot study builds on the image issues associated with geoscience degrees (namely physical geography and geology) and the potential obstacles this creates for prospective applicants with physical disabilities; departmental faculty may not be aware of the exclusive image projected that is thought to attract more students. While the industry has moved from field-based data collection to more office-based observation and interpretation of those data, universities still heavily rely on “adventurous geoscience” in their marketing, depicting students tackling challenging environments. The context of perception issues within the geoscience discipline is illustrated through selected program promotional materials, and student registration data. These issues were used for the basis of our study survey, sent out to higher education geoscience educators, which asked questions reading fieldwork and accessibility of the curriculum. These surveys were followed up with semi-structured interviews, investigating educator awareness of the perceived importance of fieldwork within the curriculum. The awareness of accessibility issues were connected with opportunities to lower perceived barriers sufficiently to encourage students with disabilities to apply for geoscience degrees. Outcomes of this exploratory investigation are hoped to provide the springboard for further conversations amongst the geoscience community.

Cavernous rock decay processes represent a global phenomenon, ubiquitous to all environments, with the viewable-in-landscape form usually being the final descriptor (e.g. “alveoli”), sometimes alluding to the specific decay process (e.g. “pitting”), other times not (e.g. “honeycombing”). Yet, definitive terminology remains inconsistent, usually owing to variability in dimension, morphometry, distribution, and/or academic lineage. This lack of an established lexicon limits scientific collaboration and can generate scientific bias. With no official consensus on appropriate distinctions, researchers and scientists must either be familiar with all the possible terminology, or know the apparent distinction between “forms”—which can seem arbitrary and, even more frustrating, often differs from researcher to researcher, scientist to scientist. This article reviews the historical and contemporary progression of scientific inquiry into this decay—and, arguably, erosional—feature to identify lexical inconsistencies and promote a singular unifying term for future scholars. Ultimately, the authors support using “tafoni” (singular: “tafone”) as the non-scalar universal term—the form created by numerous processes involved in cavernous decay features—and strongly suggest researchers adopt the same vernacular in order to promote collaboration.