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.

How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates

“…Moreover, studying the effects of belonging to social categories in isolation from one another results in the systematic understudy of certain minority groups, such as those who are not considered prototypical for a single social group (Cole, 2009). Studying barriers to STEM from an intersectional framework provides the possibility of narrowing the gender and racial gaps in a way that addresses the multifaceted deterrents of full STEM inclusion (Metcalf, Russell, & Hill, 2018).…”

Connecting Theory to Practice: Using Self-Determination Theory To Better Understand Inclusion in STEM

“…In addition, many of these efforts are being driven by faculty and administrators that lack training in the theoretical constructs and methods common to the social sciences. These tools are key to the development and assessment of effective and generalizable interventions focused on inclusion in STEM (17)(18)(19). Thus, current efforts at increasing inclusion in STEM could benefit greatly from the incorporation of relevant theoretical frameworks, research findings, methodology, and measurement instruments from the social sciences.…”

Seven decades of chemotherapy clinical trials: a pan-cancer social network analysis

“…The most common venues for publication were high-impact clinical journals: the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 1595, 28.5%), the Lancet family (n = 710, 12.7%), the New England Journal of Medicine (n = 495, 8.8%), and the Blood family (n = 495, 8.8%). Co-authorship has changed in a non-linear fashion over time: the median number of authors per publication increased from n = 6 in 1946 to n = 20 (IQR [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] in 2018 ( Figure S2). Across subspecialties, the median number of co-authors per publication varied somewhat, from a low of n = 10 (IQR 7-15) in gynecologic oncology to a high of n = 16 (IQR 11-22) in dermatologic oncology.…”

“…This could contribute to a widening disparity between authors with early access to resources through personal networks and authors in more socially disadvantageous positions, e.g., those who come from low-income backgrounds or were the first in their family to attend college 21 , 22 . These groups are more likely to include underrepresented minorities, e.g., women of color, who face a number of discriminatory barriers in pursuing careers in medicine and medical research 11 , 23 , 24 .…”