Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM

Abstract

Scholars across disciplines and throughout PK‐20 education have argued that color‐blind ideology works to perpetuate racial inequities in education via policies, research, curriculum, instruction, and student‐teacher interactions. This study explores an underexamined issue in relation to color‐blind ideology in STEM education. Specifically, it examines how a sample of college science faculty members use color‐blind framings to make sense of the underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students in their fields. Interviews were conducted with 42 professors (majority tenured/tenure‐track, white, male, and continuing generation to college) in a College of Sciences at a research‐intensive, historically white institution in the United States. Thematic analysis showed that while many faculty members implicated systemic racism in their sense making about the underrepresentation of racially minoritized students in STEM, the majority used color‐blind frames (abstract liberalism, cultural racism, and minimization of racism) by focusing on individual behaviors and choices, cultural deficits, under‐preparation, and poverty. Consistent with the research on color‐blind ideology, professors were able to explain racial phenomena without implicating race/racism, which allowed them to absolve themselves from responsibility in addressing racial inequality issues in higher education. Faculty members who made sense of underrepresentation through systemic racism framings tended to recognize that they had a role to play in ameliorating these issues for students of color. These findings have implications for future research and professional development efforts.

Science faculty conceptions of equity and their association to teaching practices

“…Another trend for those with equality conceptions manifested when participants were making sense of the underrepresentation of Students of Color in STEM, which was part of a separate research question in the broader study and for which results were published elsewhere (Russo‐Tait, 2022). The study found that many participants believed that a lack of preparation due to under resourced K‐12 education was to blame for the issue.…”

“…I think a lot of it has to do with how well they perform… because of past experience. Professor 217, Asian man (as cited in Russo‐Tait, 2022)…”

“…Professor 217 dismissed racism and used deficit perspectives about Students of Color. All faculty with equality conceptions dismissed systemic racism via color‐blind discourse (Bonilla‐Silva, 2018) and focused instead on perceived student deficits such as lack of preparation, motivation or confidence, as well as poverty and cultural deficits (Russo‐Tait, 2022). While it is true that some Students of Color may be less academically prepared (due to systemic racism in society and K‐12 education) these types of explanations portrayed them as deficient and incapable of learning.…”

“…While it is true that some Students of Color may be less academically prepared (due to systemic racism in society and K‐12 education) these types of explanations portrayed them as deficient and incapable of learning. This also worked to absolve faculty from responsibility in addressing racial inequality (Russo‐Tait, 2022). This connection between color‐blind ideals and equality conceptions of equity makes sense since both ideals are part of core cultural values in STEM (Blair‐Loy & Cech, 2022; Leyva, et al, 2022; McGee, 2020).…”

“…Practices related to having fixed‐mindsets and color‐blind views can negatively affect minoritized student outcomes such as motivation and course grades (Canning et al, 2019; Good et al, 2020). This is likely because color‐blind ideals and fixed mindsets tend to occur in tandem with deficit perspectives of minoritized students (Russo‐Tait, 2022; Canning et al, 2019).…”