This research extends the investigator's prior NSF supported work to develop theoretical and empirical understanding of the double bind faced by women of color in STEM fields. That is, their race and gender present dual dilemmas as they move through STEM educational and career paths. The proposed study will identify gaps in our understanding, and identify some of the methodological problems associated with answering outstanding questions about the double bind. The major research question is: What strategies work to enable women of color to achieve higher levels of advancement in STEM academia and professions? The goal is to bring a clearer understanding of the issues which confront women of color as they pursue study of science and engineering, and what factors influence whether they leave or remain in STEM.
The work will employ a highly structured narrative analysis process to identify and quantify factors that have been successful in broadening the participation of minority women in STEM. The research design involves two separate tracks of work: 1) to conduct narrative analysis of primary documents associated with women of color in science; and 2) to conduct site visits and interviews to understand features of programs associated with successful support of women of color in undergraduate and graduate education. The first part is designed to inform the second, with the narrative analysis helping to identify features to look for in site visits and to use in development of interview protocols.
This research will focus on individual and programmatic factors that sustain women of color as they confront barriers to their career goals. It examines institutional strategies and support structures that help women of color ultimately to succeed, and social and pedagogic elements that influence their educational experiences. Although women of color have made some progress over the last three decades towards more equitable participation in STEM fields, the major efforts made to address this issue have not produced the desired outcomes; minority women continue to be underrepresented relative to white women and non-minority men. The factors that account for continued lower participation rates are not yet fully understood.
Beyond the Double Bind is designed to transform the intellectual basis for building future programs that will better enable women of color to be successful in STEM. While focused on women of color, the results will ultimately inform strategies and programs to expand the presence of all women and minorities in STEM.
This research investigates how eight undergraduate African American women in science, math, and engineering (SME) majors accessed cultural capital and informal science learning opportunities from preschool to college. It uses the multiple case study methodological approach and cultural capital as frameworks to better understand the participants’ opportunities to engage in informal science learning or free-choice learning. The article demonstrates that African American women have access to cultural capital and informal science learning inside and outside of home and school environments in P-16
In collaboration with a wide variety of non-profit organizations (Project SYNCERE, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Chicago Freedom School, Chicago Botanic Garden, Friends of the Chicago River, Institute for Latino Progress), the University of Chicago-Illinois seeks to prepare 30 new science teaching fellows (TFs) while building the capacity of 10 master teaching fellows (MTFs) to be leaders in urban science education. The project will address the professional development of all participants through a three-pronged mechanism which emphasizes (a) content-specific information that focuses on Next Generation Science Standards, (b) culturally relevant practices, and (c) teacher inquiry/research. The work will be performed in partnership with the Chicago Public Schools.
Recent graduates, career changers, and in-service Master Teachers will be provided with (a) a broad range of science concentrations including biology, chemistry, earth and space science, environmental science, and physics, (b) a unique urban perspective on science education that emphasizes diverse learning assets and equity, and (c) professional development opportunities within a community of faculty, teacher-leaders, and non-profit organizations. TFs will be prepared for licensure while earning a Master's in Instructional Leadership: Science Education, learning to teach and examine their practice as it relates to teaching, and learning within specific communities. MTFs will learn to conduct practitioner research and lead teacher inquiry groups examining essential and enduring challenges in STEM teacher practice and student learning. Formative and summative evaluation will focus on analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data related to degree and licensure attainment, the various teaching practice activities (lesson plans, participant surveys, etc.), and progress in meeting the overarching project goals. In doing so, the project will advance knowledge and understanding of the role played by community-based partnerships of university faculty, school teacher-leaders, and local non-profit entities in enhancing teacher education and development, and the circumstances that promote their success. The results of this work will be presented at national meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Maria VarelasChandra JamesCarole MitchenerAixa AlfonsoDaniel Morales-Doyle
The Math, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) outreach programs are partnerships between K-12 schools and higher education in eight states that for over forty years introduce science, mathematics and engineering to K-12 students traditionally underrepresented in the discipline. This exploratory study examines the influences that those MESA activities have on students' perception of engineering and their self-efficacy and interest in engineering and their subsequent decisions to pursue careers in engineering. The MESA activities to be studied include field trips, guest lecturers, design competitions, hands-on activities and student career and academic advisement.
About 1200 students selected from 40 MESA sites in California, Maryland and Utah are surveyed with instruments that build on those used in prior studies. Focus groups with a randomly selected subset of the students provide follow-up and probe the influence of the most promising activities. In the first year of the project the instruments, based on existing instruments, are developed and piloted. Data are taken in the second year and analyzed in the third year. A separate evaluation determines that the protocols are reasonable and are being followed.
The results are applicable to a number of organizations with similar aims and provide information for increasing the number of engineers from underrepresented populations. The project also investigates the correlation between student engagement in MESA and academic performance. This project provides insights on activities used in informal settings that can be employed in the classroom practice and instructional materials to further engage students, especially student from underrepresented groups, in the study of STEM.
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Christine HaileyCameron DensonChandra Austin
resourceprojectProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This project supports the Broader Impacts and Outreach Network for Institutional Collaboration (BIONIC), a national Research Coordination Network of Broader Impacts to support professionals who assist researchers to design, implement, and evaluate the Broader Impacts activities for NSF proposals and awards. All NSF proposals are evaluated not only on the Intellectual Merit of the proposed research, but also on the Broader Impacts of the proposed work, such as societal relevance, educational outreach, and community engagement. Many institutions have begun employing Broader Impacts support professionals, but in most cases, these individuals have not worked as a group to identify and share best practices. As a consequence, there has been much duplication of effort. Through coordination, BIONIC is expected to improve efficiency, reduce redundancy, and have significant impact in several areas: 1) Researchers will benefit from an increased understanding of the Broader Impacts merit review criterion and increased access to collaborators who can help them design, implement, and evaluate their Broader Impacts activities; 2) Institutions and research centers will increase their capacity to support Broader Impacts via mentoring for Broader Impacts professionals and consulting on how to build Broader Impacts support infrastructure, with attention to inclusion of non-research-intensive universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic- and Minority-Serving Institutions that may not have the resources to support an institutional Broader Impacts office; and 3) NSF, itself, will benefit from a systematic and consistent approach to Broader Impacts that will lead to better fulfillment of the Broader Impacts criterion by researchers, better evaluation of Broader Impacts activities by reviewers and program officers, and a system for evaluating the effectiveness of Broader Impacts activities in the aggregate, as mandated by Congress and the National Science Board. Through its many planned activities, BIONIC will ultimately help advance the societal aims that the Broader Impacts merit review criterion was meant to achieve.
The main goals of the project will be accomplished through the four specific objectives: 1) Identify and curate promising models, practices, and evaluation methods for the Broader Impacts community; 2) Expand engagement in, and support the development of, high-quality Broader Impacts activities by educating current and future faculty and researchers on effective practices; 3) Develop the human resources necessary for sustained growth and increased diversity of the Broader Impacts community; and 4) Promote cross-institutional collaboration and dissemination for Broader Impacts programs, practices, models, materials, and resources. BIONIC will facilitate collaborative Broader Impacts work across institutions, help leverage previously developed resources, support professional development, and train new colleagues to enter into the Broader Impacts field. This project will improve the quality and sustainability of Broader Impacts investments, as researchers continue to create unique and effective activities that are curated and broadly disseminated. BIONIC will create a network designed to assist NSF-funded researchers at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion. In so doing, BIONIC will promote Broader Impacts activities locally, nationally, and internationally and help to advance the Broader Impacts field.
This award is co-funded by the Divisions of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences and Emerging Frontiers in the Directorate for Biological Sciences and by the Division of Chemistry in the Directorate for Mathematics and Physical Sciences.
This issue of the Journal of Science Communication raises a number of questions about the ways that new scientific research emerges from research institutions and in particular the role played by scientists, press officers and journalists in this process. This is not to suggest that the public don't play an equally important role, and several articles in this issue raise questions about public engagement, but to explore the dynamics at play in one specific arena: that of news production. In this editorial I explore the increasing reliance of science journalists on public relations sources and
Public communication from research institutions often functions as both science communication and public relations. And while these are distinct functions, public relations efforts often serve as science communication tools. This is because successful science communication and public relations efforts for research institutions both rely on finding shared language and disseminating findings in context.
We argue that the institutionalized push communication of academic institutions has become the dominant form of public science communication and has tended to force other forms and functions of science communication into the background. Given the new schemes of public funding, public communication of science now primarily serves the purpose of enabling academic institutions to promote themselves in a competition that has been forced upon them by the political domain. What academics working under these conditions say about themselves and their work (and what they do not) will depend crucially
Scientific institutions have for a long time known the importance of framing and owning stories about science They also know the effective way of communicating science in a press release This is part of the institution’s public relations. Enhanced competition among research institutions has led to a buildup of communicative competences and professionalization of public relations inside the institutions and the press release has become an integrated part of science communication from these institutions. Changing working conditions in the media, where fewer people have to publish more, have made
There is growing competition among publicly funded scientific institutes and universities to attract staff, students, funding and research partners. As a result, there has been increased emphasis on science communication activities in research institutes over the past decade. But are institutes communicating science simply for the sake of improving the institute’s image? In this set of commentaries we explore the relationship between science communication and public relations (PR) activities, in an attempt to clarify what research institutes are actually doing. The overall opinion of the
Sharing scientific knowledge in conflict zones may not sound like a priority. Still science communicators can contribute to address social issues by inviting people to experience research practice, engaging them in scientific questioning and constructive dialog.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Leila PerieLivio Riboli-SascoClaire Ribrault
In contrast to past consensus, many authors now feel that the passive voice compromises the quality of scientific writing. However, studies involving scientific articles are rare. Using a corpus of 60 scientific research articles from six journals, this study examined the proportion of passives used, and the contexts and forms in which they occurred. The results revealed that about 30% of all clauses were passive clauses. The canonical form was most pervasive, followed by the bare passive; together, they constituted more than a quarter of all clauses analyzed. Passives were typically used in