Broadening the Science of Broadening Participation in STEM Through Critical Mixed Methodologies and Intersectionality Frameworks

Abstract

If we wish to see our STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) broadening participation efforts affect change, we must also critically reflect upon and broaden our scientific approaches to studying STEM participation, adopting methodologies and frameworks that most appropriately fit the problems and questions at hand. In this article, we discuss how critical mixed-methodological approaches and intersectionality frameworks offer the possibility of a science of broadening participation that deeply understands, contextualizes, and addresses complex barriers to STEM inclusion. First, we describe the suggested approaches and frameworks, illustrating how they allow us to improve how we collect, measure, interpret, and analyze data. Next, we provide some specific examples of how such approaches and frameworks have enriched our scientific work. Last, we offer some final recommendations for researchers seeking to broaden the science of broadening participation in STEM.

Keywords

STEM intersectionality critical methodology participation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Women. (2017). A research agenda on gender in computing and engineering. Washington, DC: Buse

Hill

Benson

. Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=Research-Agenda-Gender-Engineering-Computing

Association for Women in Science. (2016). Member demographic survey. Washington, DC: Metcalf, H. & Russell, D.

Atherton

T. J.

Barthelemy

R. S.

Deconinck

Falk

M. L.

Garmon

(2016). LGBT climate in physics: Building an inclusive community (American Physical Society Special Report). Retrieved from https://www.aps.org/programs/lgbt/upload/LGBTClimateinPhysicsReport.pdf

Aycock

L. B.

Brewe

E. K.

Clancy

R. M.

Goertzen

R. M.

Hazari

Hodapp

. . . Larson

E. L.

(2017). Sexual harassment reported among a sample of undergraduate women in physics. Journal of Community Genetics, 8, 229. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016APS..DMP.D1185A

Baez

(2007). Thinking critically about the “critical”: Quantitative research as social critique. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 17-23.

Benner

(2017, June 30). Women in tech speak frankly on culture of harassment. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html?mcubz=0

Bowleg

(2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1267-1273. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3477987/

Callaway

(2013). HeLa publication brews bioethical storm. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/news/hela-publication-brews-bioethical-storm- 1.12689

Castilla

Bernard

(2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 534-676. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

10.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 785-810.

11.

Clancy

Lee

Rodgers

Richey

(2017). Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: Women of color face greater risks of gendered and racial harassment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122, 1610-1623. doi:10.1002/2017JE005256

12.

Collins

P. H.

(2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1-20.

13.

Corbie-Smith

(1999). The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Considerations for clinical investigation. American Journal of the Medical Sciences , 317, 5-8.

14.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139-167. Retrieved from http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/

15.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. Retrieved from http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mapping-margins.pdf

16.

Dean

Koster

(2014). Equitable solutions for retaining a robust STEM workforce: Beyond best practices. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.

17.

Elaut

Heylens

Hoorde

B. V.

Baetens

Cuypere

(2016). DSM-IV versus DSM-5: Do the new criteria for gender dysphoria lead to different diagnostic outcomes? Paper presented at World Professional Association of Transgender Health, the 24th Biennial Scientific Symposium. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7204909

18.

Gibbs

Basson

Xierali

Broniatowski

(2016). Decoupling of the minority Ph.D. talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US. eLife. Retrieved from https://elifesciences.org/articles/21393. doi:10.7554/eLife.21393.001

19.

Griffin

K. A.

Museus

(Eds.). (2011). New directions in institutional research: Vol. 151. Using mixed-methods to study intersectionality in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Hancock

(2007). Where multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 63-79.

21.

Handley

Brown

Moss-Racusin

Smith

(2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A, 112, 13201-13206. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629390/

22.

Hull

G. T.

Bell-Scott

Smith

(Eds.). (1982). All the women are white, all the men are black, but some of us are brave. New York, NY: Feminist Press at CUNY.

23.

Hunt

Morimoto

Zajicek

Lisnic

(2012). Intersectionality and dismantling institutional privilege: The case of the NSF ADVANCE Program. Race, Gender & Class, 19, 266-290.

24.

Izzo

M. V.

Bauer

W. M.

(2013). Universal design for learning: Enhancing achievement and employment of STEM students with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 17-27. doi:10.1007/s10209-013-0332-167

25.

Jean

V. A.

Payne

S. C.

Thompson

R. J.

(2015). Women in STEM: Family-related challenges and initiatives. In Mills

(Ed.), Gender and the work-family experience: An intersection of two domains (pp. 291-311). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Kaplan

Rogers

(2001). Social deviance: Testing a general theory. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Lincoln.

27.

Kessler

S. J.

(1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 3-26. doi:10.1086/494643

28.

Leslie

S. J.

Cimpian

Meyer

Freeland

(2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic discipline. Science, 347, 262-265. doi:10.1126/sci ence.1261375

29.

Lev

(2016). Gender dysphoria. In Naples

Hoogland

R. C.

Wikramasinghe

Wong

W. C. A.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies. doi:10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss281

30.

Lincoln

A. E.

Pincus

Koster

Leboy

(2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the United States, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42, 307-320. doi:10.1177/0306312711435830

31.

Metcalf

(2016). Broadening the study of participation in the life sciences: How critical theoretical and mixed-methodological approaches can enhance efforts to broaden participation. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15, rm3. Retrieved from http://www.lifescied.org/content/15/3/rm3. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0064

32.

Meyer

Cimpian

Leslie

(2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 235. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235/full. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235

33.

Milkman

Akinola

Chugh

(2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1678-1712. doi:10.1037/apl0000022

34.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Brescoll

V. L.

Graham

M. J.

Handelsman

(2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A, 109, 16474-16479. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

35.

National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

36.

National Science Foundation. (2015). National Center for Science and Engineering statistics: Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sestat

37.

Rothkopf

(2016). The science community has a serious harassment problem. Jezebel. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/the-scientific-community-has-a-serious-harassment-probl-1755254413

38.

Schiebinger

(1990). The anatomy of difference: Race and sex in eighteenth-century science. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 23, 387-405. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739176

39.

Storage

Horne

Cimpian

Leslie

(2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLoS ONE, 11, e0150194. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150194

40.

Trahan

(2011). Qualitative research and intersectionality. Critical Criminology, 19, 1-14.

41.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Cohen

G. L.

(2007). I think it. Therefore, it’s true: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 207-223.

42.

Warner

L. R.

Shields

S. A.

(2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68, 803-810.

43.

Williams

J. C.

Massinger

(2016, July 25). How women are harassed out of science. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/how-women-are-harassed-out-of-science/492521/

44.

Williams

J. C.

Phillips

K. W.

Hall

E. V.

(2014). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. Retrieved from http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-jeopardy-report.pdf

45.

Ziliak

S. T.

McCloskey

(2011). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from https://www.press.umich.edu/186351/cult_of_statistical_significance