Exploring race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines via decolonial intersectionality theory

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1776419/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Exploring race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines via decolonial intersectionality theory

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1776419/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

In the past decade, motivational pathways influencing all disciplines or career choices through various theories/models is on the rise. Regardless, race and gender within the domain of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is disproportionately researched. The disproportionality is particularly true in comparison with other races and gender. Undoubtedly, whilst there is the need to bridge the disparity, ongoing research is leaning towards under-examining the extent to which the intersection of race and gender identities influence the experiences of various racial and genders’ access, opportunity, and success to STEM disciplines. In reaction to such crucial discourse, the current study is in part motivated by the dearth of scholarship. Consequently, and through case study by sampling 15 respondents, the aim was to examine the multifaceted marginalisation of various racial and genders’ experiences in STEM disciplines. Using decolonial intersectionality as a theoretical lens, the data from the participants’ exposed not only academic challenges but concurrently one that reflects a social and institutional barrier. The study revealed persistent presence of race and gender challenges in the pursuit of STEM discipline. While previous studies established the increase of racism in primary, secondary, and postsecondary education, the current study however, illustrates uncontrolled position of the racialised and gendered experiences of STEM aspirants. However, the theoretical contribution following the application of intersectionality provides the grounds for further examination of identity among underrepresented groups. The data from the current study reinforces the correlation between career interests and the possibility of pursuing STEM career.

postsecondary education

STEM disciplines

decolonial

race and gender

While vast array of studies have reported on the need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in countries’ development, there still exist limited exploration of other influencers such as race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines trajectory (Ackerman, Bowen, Beier & Kanfer 2001; Ceci, Williams & Barnett 2009; Charleston, Adserias, Lang and Jackson 2014; Franz-Odendaal, Blotnicky, French and Joy 2016; O'Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, and Hammer 2015; O'Brien, Garcia, Blodorn, Adams, Hammer & Gravelin 2020; Wang and Degol 2017). One key point highlighted was that the crisis is of significant proportion regarding pathways influencing disciplines such as STEM. Among others, it has also been evidenced that differential representations tend to start during the early years, while continuing within institutions such as higher education and other workspaces (Charleston et al. 2014). For instance, Ceci et al. (2009) highlight the need to investigate women’s underrepresentation in science and the considerations for sociocultural and institution roles. Ceci et al. (2009) argued that the crisis appears to be of significant proportion when examining race and gender with emphasis on how those two identity elements appear to marginalise particularly Black women in STEM. As with South Africa, in the United States of America, Charleston et al. (2014, p. 8) on building on Ceci et al. (2009) view established that, “…women hold STEM jobs at a far lower rate compared to their overall participation in the job market, while African American women make up about 6.4% of the total population.” Charleston et al. (2014, p. 8) add that “…they [women] hold only 2.4% of all social economic jobs. Additionally, “….within mathematical and computing science occupations however, African American women accounted for 65,000 of the more than 3.5 million people employed in these fields in 2010, or approximately 2% of the total mathematical and computing sciences jobs.”

As a departure from other studies aimed at examining determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge (Ackerman et al., 2001) and heritage knowledge in the curriculum (King and Swartz 2018), the current study was guided by the contentions related to the intersectionality of mathematics, race and gender to STEM pursuits. As a result, the author explores race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines via intersectionality theory. Through the work of Ayar and Yalvac (2016), an examination of lessons learned in interdisciplinarity and mentoring for STEM learning environments is explored. Additionally, intersectionality and STEM in relation to the role of race and gender in the Academic pursuits of women in STEM through the work of Charleston et al. (2014) is further interrogated. Resultantly and using race and gender as identities and intersections, the current study delineates from previous theoretical framework through the lens of Crenshaw’s (1991) idea of mapping the margins through intersectionality. Due to the fact that the current work is anchored on lived experiences of STEM aspirants, attention was extended to the work of Franz-Odendaal et al. (2016) regarding the experiences and perceptions of STEM subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM. To explore further explore race specifically, some attention was paid to O'Brien et al.’s (2015) ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation. Additionally, O'Brien et al.’s (2020) view on educational intervention to improve women's academic STEM outcomes in divergent effects on well-represented vs. underrepresented minority women was also considered. Other forms of examiners included the work of Wang and Degol (2013) and Wang and Degol (2017) on motivational pathways to STEM career choices as well as gender gaps in STEM and its implications for practice.

Based on the introduction, the following constitute the aims of the study:

Exploring M in STEM Intersectionality and Double-blind stance
Examining race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines trajectory via Intersectionality

A. Mathematics (M) in STEM intersectionality and duality in South Africa and international perspectives

In recent times, STEM-related studies and its individual components have worrisomely mushroomed in different kinds (Ayar & Yalvac 2016; Blotnicky et al. 2018; Franz-Odendaal et al. 2016; Sahin, Gulacar and Stuessy, 2015; Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari and Tai 2012). For example, Ayar and Yalvac (2016) found that interdisciplinarity is closely related to STEM learning environments. Similarly, Sahin et al. (2015) suggest that students’ perceptions of STEM career aspirations correlate strongly with 21^st century skill development of its (STEM) components. As with Sahin et al. (2015), both Blotnicky et al (2018) and Franz-Odendaal et al. (2016) established correlation between students’ experiences, mathematics self-efficacy and perceptions with STEM subjects, careers as well as engagement in STEM activities. The consensus and thus implication so far as noted by Sadler et al. (2012) is that such linkages tend to form stability and thus reduces volatility and variability of STEM career interest.

Number of implications could be drawn so far: That is regardless of the aforementioned strives towards understanding STEM career aspirations, several other avenues as reported by growing number of sources remain rife for investigations (Ballen, Wieman, Salehi, Searle and Zamudio 2017; Carver, Van Sickle, Holcomb, Quinn, Jackson, Resnick, Duffy, Sridhar, Marquard 2017; Gilmer 2007; National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics 2013; Wilson, Holmes, deGravelles, Sylvain, Batiste, Johnson, McGuire, Pang & Warner 2012). In a recent study by Bešić (2020), the need is to understand how to enhance diversity in science, while concurrently investigating how mathematics efficacy influence STEM career. While not an exhaustive list of confluence of factors as portrayed in Figure 1, the inference as highlighted by Bešić (2020) is the intersectionality of various major influencers. These include the linkages/association between the individual, the group membership, social context and other unified factors with STEM, which are not just mutually exclusive of the pathways towards inclusive education, but further exacerbate and widens the STEM career gaps and choices.

Invariably, another implication is that there is limited to no comprehensive research related to the uptake, success as well as improving retention among underrepresented group in STEM, while accounting for the different intersectionality and pathway towards inclusive education (Bešić 2020; Carver et al. 2017). Consequently, the need to explore such gaps need an understanding of retention and graduation rates of STEM majors amongst underrepresented groups and hence address access to mathematics and thus STEM. In effect, what is argued for as suggested by both Sickle et al. (2020) and Wilson et al. (2012) is a hierarchical mentoring programme of individual components of STEM, with particular reference to less opportune subjects such as mathematics, with a transformative aimed at improving diversity as well as retention within underprivileged groups. Resultantly, closing the achievement gap for underrepresented students in STEM.

B. Race as a conduit to STEM disciplines via Intersectionality

While there is a need to further explore the intersectionality of the M in STEM and its dual position, simultaneously, increasing number of studies suggest that ethnic variation ( the social constructs - race) tends to mediate or exacerbate STEM stereotypes, consequently impeding STEM participation (O'Brien et al. 2014; O'Brien et al., 2019; Harris & Watson-Vandiver, 2020; Schinske, Cardena and Kaliangara 2015). This far though, couple of evidence prevail. The generally accepted view is that stereotypic traits to some extent influence STEM participation. However, unlike the generally accepted influence on STEM participation, the relative strength of association varies considerably as per ethnic variation in the form of race. Drawn from the work of O'Brien et al. (2014), the evidence is that African American women for the most part have weaker STEM stereotypes, compared to their European American women. On the other hand, while African American men do have weaker implicit STEM stereotypes compared to European American men, generally, ethnic differences in STEM participation is not significant compared to women. The implication is that ethnic differences tend to mediate STEM participation but far more pronounced with women. Such a profound implication serves as a motive for the intersectional stance. That is, understanding intersectional identity (race and gender role in STEM participation) has become paramount due in part to the interconnectedness of race and gender on STEM participation. As noted by Schinske et al. (2015), the need to uncover STEM stereotypes together with factors such as learners’ race and performance is key to understand diverse communities’ contexts. For instance, up until now, few studies this far have attempted to examine STEM participation stereotypes among university students, though it has been argued that so far the literature is particularly sparse on race and gender (Schinske et al. 2015). What is known though is that learners who identify with non-stereotypical perceptions of STEM participation in the beginning with class significantly perform well than the other (Schinske et al., 2015: 1).

The ramifications so far are how to respond to social psychological intervention influencing ethnic diversity particularly among underrepresented groups and STEM participation. Thus, the need to understand intersectional approaches in studying ethnic diversity and STEM participation (O'Brien et al., 2019). Connecting to and reacting with such studies too, recently, Harris and Watson-Vandiver (2020) acknowledged that such attempts are likely to respond to the ongoing calls on decolonizing race and other influencers such as gender intersectionality particularly in higher education. Effectively the suggestion is a transformative education should seek to expand and engage pedagogy. Meaning transformative education provides opportunities through diverse perspectives and oppositional histories such as underrepresented groups in mathematics in STEM (Harris & Watson-Vandiver, 2020).

C. Gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines trajectory via Intersectionality

Aside Mathematics (M) and race mediating STEM, there has yet been additional construct, namely gender (Cheryan, Meltzoff & Kim 2011; Wang & Degol 2017). Gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines and its intersectionality has increasingly gained traction (Cheryan, Meltzoff and Kim 20111; Eccles, Barber & Jozefowicz 1999; Jacob and Eccles 1992; Meyer, Cimpian and Leslie 2015; O’Brien et al. 2014; Wang & Degol 2017). Several positions have been advanced. For instance, women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance (Meyer, Cimpian and Leslie 2015). Research by Brien et al. (2014) revealed both ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and consequently STEM participation. For instance, Brien et al. (2014, p. 160) established that compared to European American college women, African American college women far more participate in STEM majors. In contrast though,” African American women had weaker implicit gender-STEM stereotypes compared to European American. On the other hand, even though African American men showed weaker implicit gender-STEM stereotypes than European American men, ethnic differences between men in STEM participation were nonsignificant.” Such studies have also gained traction because, while stereotypes related to gender and STEM intersectionality remain pervasive, it is argued that the relative strength of these stereotypes varies considerably across gender types (Wang and Degol 2017). The view is that gender is a significant determinant of individual differences and hence gender differences in STEM knowledge (Ackerman, Bowen, Beier and Kanfer (2001). For instance, Jacob and Eccles (1992) noted the impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on children’s ability and perceptions. Consequently, Ceci et al. (2011) highlighted need for critical understanding of causes of women’s underrepresentation in STEM. This is because, women’s underrepresentation in science has both sociocultural and biological considerations in countries economic prosperity (Ceci et al. 2011). Accordingly, the need to address such challenges as Cheryan et al. (2009) argued is because, stereotypical cues impact gender participation in STEM. The need to then rectify such challenges is informed by the work of Cheryan et al. (2011), so suggest that in contrast, women, far more than male role models, tend to endure STEM stereotypes and thus hinder women anticipated success in STEM. In the past for instance, Cvencek, Meltzoff and Greenwald (2011) also establish that math-gender stereotypes even do exist in elementary school children. Due to such evidence of gender disparity, inevitably Diekman, Brown, Johnston and Clark (2010) argued that seeking congruity between goals and roles should be the new look at why women for instance opt out of STEM careers. Effectively, Eccles et al (1999) suggest that linking gender to educational and occupational choice is likely to improve the participation and achievement-related choices. Until such remedial actions are taken, Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis and Williams (2008) argue that such gender dissimilarities will characterise mathematics and consequently, STEM performance. The conclusion that could be drawn and based on recent work by Yalcinkaya and Adams (2020) revealed that gender gaps in STEM participation are much wider in communities in which women do have greater freedom of choice. Such phenomenon related to maths and STEM quest tend to result in wider gender gap.

In the past, intersectionality theory contributed to the understanding of fields such as geography, sociology, psychology, leadership studies, religion, queer theory and sexuality studies, international and transnational studies, and law (Charleston et al. 2014). In the main though “…intersectional analysis of [gender] experiences holds that [affected groups such as] minority women are subject to the complex interplay of sexism and racism, conceptualized as the double bind” (Ong et al. 2011, p. 34). What is meant is that the double bind consists of a set of “unique challenges minority women [face] as they simultaneously experienced sexism and racism in their STEM careers” (Ong et al. 2011, p. 175). However, for African women for instance pursuing STEM fields, the double bind notion suggests that the affected group encounter far more exclusive challenge to pursue STEM career which “… are not only in conflict with their racial identity, but also with their gender identity while situated in an environment historically dominated by White…” (Charleston et al. 2014, p. 22).

However, growing trend is that “…although the development of strong, decolonial intersectional identities have been identified as critical cultural and societal factors in development, the intersections of Black women’s racial, gender, and scientific identities may conflict with many of the messages Black women and girls receive throughout the educational pipeline, and may thus pose a significant challenge to their ability to successfully develop a Black woman scientist identity” (Charleston et al. 2014, p. 22 ). While intersectionality has contributed to the understanding of gender, but far more considered as a singular identity (say gender only) (Museus and Griffin 2011).

From the introduction and literature review this far, some implications could be reached in advancing the research aims of the current study. For instance, the drawback of examining singular identity as opposed to multifaceted dimensions as depicted in Fig. 1 (in literature review) is that such contemporary unidimensional identity tends to be incomprehensible, hence the need for intersectionality theory to juxtapose multiple constructs. They are also overlooked and deepen the consistent continuation of marginalised groups. That is, in line with the current study and a fundamental perspective of intersectionality is that one’s inability to account for the real composition and diversity of populations, leads to the unintended (intended) consequence. Such ripple effects lead to overlooking identities of the marginalised groups by reinforcing ignorant ideologies regarding how intersecting identities impact inequality. Thus, intersectional identities advocate for women’s success in disciples (STEM) or fields being hinged on the development of an identity which should be compatible multiple factors if applicable. These for instance include their gender and racial identities together with their academic interests, which effectively form the anchor upon which to interrogate the data further in the discussion section.

Guided by the aforementioned aims and following the suggestion of Chism and Banta (2007) in employing semi-structured as well as open-ended methods, participants were allowed to “introduce themes that the interviewer might not have anticipated in framing questions” (p. 16). Such introduction of themes is informative in exploring which tend to relate to the M in STEM and exploring race and gender as conduit to STEM disciplines. As alluded by Creswell (2012), number of reasons are attributed to the qualitative approach adopted. The first is that it is useful for the examination of lived experiences of participants. Concurrently, it is also useful to discover themes while conducting an exploratory type of research aims. Primarily, the study sough to shed light on the lived experiences through intersectional constructs. Based on the aims, a phenomenological design was deemed appropriate in understanding the common experience. The data thus allowed for the development of principal knowledge regarding the phenomenon. In effect, the research used focus group to collect data which lasted for about thirty minutes. In all cases, all fifteen (15) interviewees were moderated by the researcher who was Black STEM lecturer. Noting oral consent was provided by participants, where participants had the right to in suspending the interviews. Each interview session comprised of open-ended questions. They were designed to collect data of interviews’ experiences. The thrust was primarily on gender and race views on STEM participation. The study employed purposeful sampling technique following the aims of the study (Creswell 2012). Wherein all interviewees identified as enrolled full-time for Bachelor of Education pre-service programme. For these interviewees, each was majoring mathematics (computing-science). All interviewees were geographically placed in the same province of South Africa in the same University. For validity reasons and consistency, the lecturer served as the researcher of the study, regardless, some efforts in ensuring the validity as explained below bolstered the findings. For instance, validity constructs related to credibility and fittingness were employed by following research design (phenomenological design) which is replicable, but contingent on prescribed conditions of the phenomenon as described characteristics. Additionally, collected data were coded informed by replicable themes. In all cases, the researcher ensured a prolonged and persistent forms of engagement. Such an approached ensured in-depth understanding of participants experiences and illustrative the depth of data.

The current research set out to explore how race and gender influence STEM disciplines via intersectionality theory. The development of the current section is however based on the aims, literature review, theoretical stance and keenly the respondents’ views (data). Accordingly, the current section is divided into two main sections. Whereas closely directed by the data, the second subsection is on gender and race influences on STEM, while through the aims of the study, first section is directed and coordinated by general perspective from literature and theoretical disposition.

A. General perspective from literature and theoretical disposition

Confluence of evidence from both literature and theoretical disposition highlight grim relation of race and gender with STEM career (Harris & Watson-Vandiver, 2020). For example, a bleak position held on race particularly by Harris and Watson-Vandiver (2020, p. 1) is that “the notion that we are living through ‘post-racial’ times is asinine.” Ongoing research tend to support Harris and Watson-Vandiver’s (2020) stark sentiment. For instance, some research using collaborative critical autoethnography of the educational experiences of women of African descent have supported Harris and Watson-Vandiver’s (2020) view. As a result, the recommendation was that decolonising race and gender intersectionality in education generally could serve as a formidable attempt to retore hope, healing, and justice. In Harris and Watson-Vandiver (2020) viewpoint, the use of decolonial intersectionality theory could better align with and serve as improved form of understanding the lived experiences or underrepresented groups in the education setting. The reason has primarily been due to the ambivalent position of education, in which it (education) serves both as divider and equalizer for students and their professors. Such a view is anchored on Bakers’s (2020) position in terms of how people in position such as teachers could transform society. In parallel fields such as the criminal justice system, Alexander (2012) lamented over the “the new Jim Crow” resulting in mass incarceration within the age of colour blindness.

Due to such grim disputation as alluded by Alexander (2012), Bakers’s (2020), Harris and Watson-Vandiver (2020), earlier studies had already argued for the need to map the margins in relation to the intersectionality, identity politics, and particularly gender-gap against women (Crenshaw 1991). The claim asserted by Crenshaw (1991, p. 56) problematise monolithic [view] of race and gender and instead surface the “simultaneity” within modes of difference.” Even though Crenshaw’s (1991) work was based on Black women’s experiences within the legal setting, contemporary research related to intersectionality are beginning to provide and expand the situation for other studies. It is on the basis of Crenshaw’s (1991) standpoint that some proponents have called for the need to resolve the problem of “heritage knowledge in the curriculum” through decolonial intersectionality (King & Swartz 2018, p. 6). As with Fig. 1, intersectionality and pathway towards inclusive education (Bešić 2020, p. 116), some moderating factors have in the form of compounding complexities of navigating White patriarchy have also influenced such intersectionality. For instance, other matrix of domination which describe extra layers of oppression are class, sexuality, age, and gender (Bešić 2020). Regardless of the ongoing efforts, Salem (2014) argues that the dominant views on gender and race persist, “thus allowing certain ideas and moments to gain currency” (p. 3). Such ideas are equally seen in education. For instance, select “white narratives are propagated in the curriculum, while marginali[s]ing [Black] perspectives (Salem 2014, p. 2). Consequently, decolonial intersectionality more narrowly seeks “compelling, complex analyses” of how insidious issues like colonialism, sexism, nationalism, and neoliberal capitalism, “either singularly or in combination” inform realities (Harris & Watson-Vandiver, 2020: 5). Effectively, the position taken by Shohat and Stam (1994) is the need for resistance through polycentrism while simultaneously debunking the arbitrariness of standard categories of identity that are “categorically hybrid” (p. 13).

B. Perspective on race and gender duo on STEM participation

Informed by the limited studies on race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines via decolonial intersectionality, both data from current examination and literature revealed that many “Black women see their racial and gender identities among the most salient of their identities” (Charleston et al. 2014, p. 4). When asked what the view is on African women representation in STEM and mathematics, for instance, Afrika (pseudonym - a woman) indicated that;

African women [for instance] are far more unduly underrepresented in STEM and mathematics

In response to Afrka (a respondent), it has been suggested that intersectionality and particularly decolonial intersectionality is likely to play a role in race and gender in the education pursuits of African women in STEM (Charleston et al. 2014). The fundamental reason is that intersectionality but keenly decolonial intersectionality reduces such disparity. The decolonial intersectionality standpoint as alluded by Charleston et al. (2014) was re-echoed by Kenyatta (pseudonym -a woman). For instance, when Kenyatta was asked about how race and gender identities influence experiences of STEM participation, the response as noted by Kenyatta was that:

it is still key to examine far more on underexamined nature of how the intersection of race and gender identities influence experiences of different genders and races pursuing STEM careers.

Kenyatta added that

That is addressing the dearth of knowledge related to the multifaceted marginalisation of affected genders and races offers opportunities and strategies for such underexamined population intending to pursue STEM educational goals.

Consistent with Kenyatta’s recommendation, previously research noted that race and gender identities play greater role in STEM trajectory (Collins, 2019). Thus, the current empirical research corroborates with the racial and ethnic, sex and gender identities of Black women. Which tend to suggest that some “Black women hold their Black racial and ethnic identities to be more salient than their sex and gender identities, while other Black women view their sex, gender, racial, and ethnic identities as uniquely situated” Settles (2006, p. 50). In connecting with Settles (2006) and the view expressed by Kenyatta, it is argued that such “uniquely-situated racial identity as being different from Black men, and Black women’s identity as being “distinct from other women because of their unique experiences, such as being potential targets of racial and gender discrimination and harassment,” do take “…precedence in their [Black women] self-concept over the individual identities of Black person and woman” (p. 590). In effect, the position of females as reflected by the research respondents is illustrative of intersectional identities. Such intersectional identities also reflect the grounds upon which Crenshaw (1989, p. 56) “first outlined intersectionality as both a form of identity, and a theoretical framework for understanding how identities interact with and inform one another.” Azania (a Black male) added that

The overtone of intersectionality [gender and race) is seen in how women continue to experience systemic removal not only from other professions but from STEM unlike us [men].

Paradoxically, about two decades now, a review of intersectionality theory has been used in synthesising; (a) empirical research on the undergraduate and graduate women of colour in STEM and (b) intersections of gender, race, and science (Ong, Wright, Espinosa and Orfield, 2011; Ong 2005). For example, intersectionality has been used to explore women’s experiences in STEM fields. In line with the aforementioned studies the response as alluded by Xoli (female respondent) is that;

we Black] women are subject to the complex interplay of both sexism and racism unlike Black men, which are consequently conceptualised” as the double bind.

Generally, the double-blind comprises a set of “unique challenges underrepresented group (women) [face] as they simultaneously experience[d] sexism and racism in their STEM careers” (Ong et al. 2011, p.175). While the conundrum is yet to be fully understood, such a predicament is far less known about males of different colour in STEM disciplines. Nevertheless, it remains to be fully understood principally, the case of under-representation of African males in STEM disciplines.

In fact, as with Tan-Wilson, Stamp, Button, Khasawneh, and Tan-Wilson (2020), Zania (female respondent) was rather intrigued indicated that:

Despite the ongoing efforts as well as the conflicting views, the key to all is the scope to improve the race-gender gap in STEM disciplines. It also includes the impact thereof and predictors such as access, opportunity, and success associated with STEM students’ aspirations. Even though ongoing studies tend to consistently imply that math and science are for the most part male-dominated.

Zania’s view resonates with Makarova et al. (2019), who in recent times indicated that the impact of access, opportunity, and success associated with STEM and the extent to which such factors influence the race-gender status of STEM is still under-researched and analysed.

For instance. while the vocational orientation of adolescents has received considerable attention in most OECD countries (OECD, 2012, p. 2017). Nablus (female respondent) wanted to know fully and thus noted

It remains to be fully understood principally the case of under-representation of males in STEM disciplines.

Though, it is important to note that the under-representation of African males in STEM disciplines has been analysed via a variety of quantitative and qualitative (Carli, Alawa, Lee Zhao and Kim 2016; Dickman, Steinberg, Brown, Belanger and Clark 2017; Sickle et al. 2020). What is drawn from ongoing research is that while concerns regarding STEM disciplines are on the rise, simultaneously, demographics such as age, gender, and race have been far more drawn to STEM scholarship (Tan-Wilson et al. 2020). For instance, Carli et al. Kim (2016) reflect on how gender and science are negatively impacted by stereotypes. On the other hand, Dykeman et al. (2017) raised concerns on the goal congruity model of role in STEM.

Based on the analysis of data so far, the current study departs from many other studies. For instance, it departs from work aimed at investigating lessons learned in interdisciplinarity, and mentoring for STEM learning environments (Ayar et al. 2016). It also departs from Alexander’s (2012) examination of the new Jim Crow and mass incarceration in the age of colour blindness. Additionally, it departs from the work of Hyde et al. (2008), investigating gender similarities that influence math performance.

In contrast though, but in line with Crenshaw’s (1989) work, the current study does illuminate inseparability and confluence of race and gender in the lives of STEM candidates. What is implied as noted by Crenshaw (1989) is that, “because the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.” Nevertheless, the current study is in confluence with many other studies. For instance, the data does converge with and supports Franz-Odendaal et al.’s (2016) work on the experiences and perceptions of STEM subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM in Canada. Even though dated, there is resonance between current work and Jacobs and Eccles’ (1992) study on the effects of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Additionally, the data tend to support recent work by O'Brien et al. (2020), who investigated educational intervention to improve women's academic STEM outcomes in attempt to address divergent effects on well-represented and underrepresented minority women. Similarly, the data does confirm the work of Schinske et al (2015), who attempted to uncover STEM stereotypes and connection race and performance in diverse institutions. For instance, the current findings highlighted the disparity in gender gap that exist. For example, while some scholarship draws heavily from the assessment of Makarova, Aeschlimann and Herzog (2019) and the Global Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum (WEF) (WEF, 2017). Wherein WEF (2017) implies that for females, the average under-representation is in fields such education, health, and welfare, the converse is rather through for Females in STEM fields (WEF 2017, p. 31). In United State (U.S.) for instance, report through the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) reported a projection of a deficit of about one million STEM graduates needed for U.S. jobs over the decade to follow (Sickle et al. 2020). Yet and alarming, less than 40% of students entering college, with the intention to major in a STEM field do complete their STEM degree (Sickle et al. 2020). Worse than ever, the “…students who obtain a STEM degree is skewed from U.S. population dynamics. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Native Alaskan make up 36.3% of the U.S. population, yet obtain only 19.7% of undergraduate science and engineering degrees, while White and Asian/Pacific Islanders make up 61.3% of the population and earn 72.4% of the science and engineering degrees…” (Sickle et al. 2020, p. 6).

However, the theoretical contribution following the application of decolonial intersectionality provides the grounds for further examination of identity among underrepresented groups. The data from the current study reinforces the association between career race and gender pursuing STEM career. The data does also reinforce the idea related to institutional culture being a significant component in studying underrepresented as well as underutilised groups, thus reflecting and confirming power relations that exist in the intersections of gender and race within STEM discipline.

Using intersectionality as a theoretical lens, the data from the participants’ exposed not only academic challenges but concurrently one that reflects a social and institutional barrier as reflected in the literature. On the other hand, the data confirmed persistent presence of race and gender challenges in the pursuit STEM discipline. While previous studies established the increase of racism in primary, secondary, and postsecondary education, the current data however, illustrates uncontrolled position of the racialised and gendered experiences of STEM aspirants. Even though the sample does not reflect any generalizable position, the respondents evidenced hostile and academically isolated environment in STEM. Such an observable phenomenon could provide reasons for such low participation from such demographic population in STEM.

Declaration of Conflict of interest

Consistent with the policy of Springer Nature and thus Cultural Studies in Science Education

“No, I declare that the I have no competing interests as defined by Springer, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.”

Ackerman, P.L., Bowen, K.R., Beier, M.E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Ayar, M.C. & Yalvac, B. (2016). Lessons learned: authenticity, interdisciplinarity, and mentoring for STEM learning environments. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 30–43.
Baker, T. (2020, February 13). The power of teachers to transform. Useable Knowledge: Relevant Research for Today’s Educators. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/ 20/02/power-teachers- transform
Bešić, E. (2020). Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education? Prospects 49, 111–122 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09461-6
Blotnicky, K. A., Franz-Odendaal, T., French F. & Joy P. (2018). A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics selfefficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(22), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0118-3
Carli, l. L., Alawa, l., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40 (2), 244–260. DOI: 10.1177/0361684315622645
Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W.M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS, 108, 3157–3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M., & Barnett, S.M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135:218–261. doi: 10.1037/a0014412
Cheryan, S., Siy, J.O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B.J. & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656–664. doi: 10.1177/1948550611405218.
Charleston, L.J., Adserias, R. P., Lang, N.M. & Jackson, J.F. L. (2014). Intersectionality and STEM: The Role of Race and Gender in the Academic Pursuits of African American Women in STEM. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 2(3), 2–22.
Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A.N. & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: the design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57:1825–1835. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V.C., Davies, P.G., & Steele, C.M. (2009). Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi: 10.1037/a0016239
Chism, N. & Banta, T. (2007). Enhancing institutional assessment efforts through qualitative methods. New Directions for Institutional Research, 15–28.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A.N., & Greenwald, A.G. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82, 766–779. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01529. x.
Diekman, A. B., Steinberg, M., Brown, E. R., Belanger, A. L., & Clark, E. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personal and Social Psychology Review, 21 (2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141
Diekman A.B., Brown, E., & Johnston, A. (2010). Clark E. Seeking congruity between goals and roles: a new look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342.
Eccles, J.S., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choice: applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In: Spence, J.T., (ed.) Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: the gender science of Janet Taylor Spence. Washington, 153–191.
Franz-Odendaal, T.A., Blotnicky, K., French, F., & Joy, P. (2016). Experiences and perceptions of STEM subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM activities among middle school students in the maritime provinces. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 153–168.
Harris, L. & Watson-Vandiver, M. J. (2020). Decolonizing Race and Gender Intersectionality in Education: A Collaborative Critical Autoethnography of Hope, Healing and Justice, Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 5(2), 9–21. doi.org/10.20897/jcasc/9321
Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B., & Williams, C.C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321:494–495. doi: 10.1126/science.1160364.
Jacobs, J.E., & Eccles, J.S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932–944. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932.
King, J. E., & Swartz, E. E. (2018). Heritage knowledge in the curriculum: Retrieving an African episteme. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351213233
Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B. & Herzog, W. (2019). The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact of the Gender Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students’ Career Aspirations. Front. Educ. 4, 60–76. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00060
Meyer, M., Cimpian, A. (2015). Leslie, S.J. Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235.
Museus, S. D., & Griffin, K. A. (2011). Mapping the margins in higher education: On the promise of intersectionality frameworks in research and discourse. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(151), 5–13. doi:10.1002/ir.395
O'Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D.M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: an intersectional approach. Culture Diversity Ethnic Minor Psychology, 21(2):169–80. doi: 10.1037/a0037944.
O'Brien, L.T., Garcia, D.M., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Hammer, E., & Gravelin, C. (2020). An educational intervention to improve women's academic STEM outcomes: Divergent effects on well-represented vs. underrepresented minority women. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 26(2), 163–168. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000289.
OECD (2012). Closing the Gap. Act Now. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264179370-en
OECD (2017). The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle. Paris: OECD. Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264281318-en
Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social Problems, 52(4), 593–617. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.593
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172-209.
Ramsey, l. R. (2017). Agentic traits are associated with success in science more than communal traits. Personality and individual differences, 106, 6–16, doi.Org/10.1016/J.Paid.2016.10.017
Sadler, P.M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z. & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.
Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of international science Olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and twenty-first century skill development. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 785–805.
Salem, S. (2014, April 17). Decolonial intersectionality and a transnational feminist movement. The Feminist Wire. Retrieved from https://thefeministwire.com/2014/04/decolonial-intersectionality/
Sickle, J.V., Schuler, K.R., Quinn, C., Holcomb, J.P. Carver, S.D., Resnick, A., Jackson,D.K., Duffy, S.F., & Sridhar, N. (2020). Closing the Achievement Gap for Underrepresented Minority Students in STEM: A Deep Look at a Comprehensive Intervention. Journal of STEM Education, 21(2), 1–18
Schinske, J., Cardenas, M., & Kaliangara, J. (2015). Uncovering Scientist Stereotypes and Their Relationships with Student Race and Student Success in a Diverse, Community College Setting. CBE Life Sci Educ, 14(3):14–35. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-12-0231.
Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1994). Unthinking eurocentrism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tan-Wilson, A., Stamp, N., Button, E., Khasawneh, M. T. & Tan-Wilson, A. (2020). An Undergraduate STEM Interdisciplinary Research Program: Factors Predictive of Students'Plans for STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education, 21(2), 19–26.
Wang, M.T. & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33 (4), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
WEF (2017). The Global Gender Gap Report. WEF. Available online at: https: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf(accessed November11, 2018).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Exploring race and gender as a conduit to STEM disciplines via decolonial intersectionality theory

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Research aims

3. Background

4. Decolonial Intersectionality Theory

5. Method

6. Findings And Discussion

7. Contribution Of Study

8. Conclusion And Future Work

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1