Are We Ready? The Future of Inclusive Excellence in STEM
As a neuroscience educator, I focus on promoting pedagogical innovations and cultural changes that strengthen the talent pipeline for my field specifically, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) more broadly, and a scientifically-informed society as a whole. Until we achieve equitable access to STEM education for students regardless of background, and thus recruit from the whole population, educators cannot claim to be preparing for a future in which the complex challenges that are unmet today will be tackled successfully by our students. I am witness to the stark attrition that is common in STEM fields, beginning with gatekeeping in introductory STEM courses, which typically have the highest rates of student failure and withdrawal within institutions. Working shoulder-to-shoulder with colleagues invested in improvement of pedagogy as a means to diversity, equity, and inclusion for students, I am troubled by the idea that pervasive, implicitly racist beliefs are not being adequately addressed in these efforts. I am referring to ingrained beliefs that result in biased attitudes I have encountered such as that a program with a more diverse cadre of students is an academically “easier” route to graduation than other STEM programs. I have seen these attitudes stretch remarkably far, even to imply that admission to a prestigious medical school from that program is less prestigious, or that earning a distinguished graduate fellowship in that subject is less of an accomplishment than earning the same fellowship in a different STEM subject. I argue that any STEM program or field that successfully diversifies will become subject to these attitudes.
In this essay, I explore the idea that these beliefs and attitudes, which are reflective of the broader culture, have a fundamental implication for the valuation of STEM labor, and by association, STEM education. Fields of employment with increased racial/ethnic diversity have been economically devalued previously. The predictable consequence of economic devaluation, given the role of higher education in socioeconomic mobility, would be that they become academically devalued. Explicit acknowledgement of this dynamic may help educators avoid the pitfall of assuming, based on increased diversity, that programs successfully implementing inclusive pedagogies, and their graduates, lack academic merit. Such an assumption is rooted in racism, as it essentializes a paradigm of STEM education that has been optimized for the success of members of the hegemonic culture.
Image: An illustration created by the author, from photographs by Joshua Coleman and Ruth Ochoa on Unsplash.
Achievement gaps between racial/ethnic groups in higher education are rooted in systemic racism that permeates the broader societal context, including the beliefs and attitudes of educators. As we consider what practices will promote justice, equity, and excellence in the development of the nation’s intellectual resources, educators working at every stage of the STEM talent pipeline should examine our own readiness for a future of inclusive excellence in STEM. The fundamental tenet of the inclusive excellence model (1) was formulated in response to Supreme Court rulings (2) on affirmative action that established student body diversity as a compelling state interest. This tenet holds that inclusion and academic excellence are inseparable in the assessment of educational quality; there can be no notion of academic excellence without inclusion. Theoretically, this link is forged by broader and more intentional investments in student learning and intellectual development than have been the historical norm in higher education. A long-term outcome of pursuing this model in STEM education is ostensibly a future in which engagement with and achievement in STEM disciplines is equitable across racial/ethnic groups. The question is: will we recognize and embrace inclusive excellence as we approach it, or will our ingrained beliefs and pedagogical practices thwart our pursuit of this ideal?
A focus on inclusive excellence in STEM is warranted for two reasons. First, recent evidence from a large-scale study of college students (3) showed that the most significant manifestation of racial/ethnic disparities occurs in STEM fields. Black and Latinx students leave college at higher rates, compared to their white peers, for other disciplines including business and social sciences. However, only for STEM majors are the rates at which they change majors or leave college elevated (4) even after accounting for differences in socioeconomic variables and high school preparation. Second, STEM degrees are particularly effective gateways to economic opportunity, garnering the highest starting salaries (5) among undergraduate majors post graduation. The disparate persistence outcomes between historically marginalized and included groups and the relative economic benefits associated with STEM degrees can be jointly conceptualized using an opportunity hoarding framework (6) in order to understand systemic dynamics and outcomes in STEM education. According to an opportunity hoarding framework, race/ethnicity-based privilege and exclusion are greatest in areas of high socioeconomic value (7). These findings from the United States are consistent with a pattern of unequal access to scientific knowledge worldwide, such that the potential for growth in socioeconomic power with which it is associated is effectively restricted (8) to groups currently holding socioeconomic power.
How will educators respond to systemic inequities in STEM education? Citing the need to cultivate a globally competitive STEM workforce (9), governmental and nongovernmental organizations that promote innovation in STEM education have, over the past decade, articulated an increasingly explicit focus on broadening participation in these fields to include people from historically marginalized racial/ethnic backgrounds. In 2020, protests and consciousness-raising efforts inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement led to a bolder emphasis on equity in education as a matter of social justice. As higher education is a major factor in lifelong economic opportunity [national salary statistics by occupation (10)], educators are now called to address diversity, equity and inclusion not only as necessary considerations in building the strongest possible STEM workforce, but also in full acknowledgement of the systemic, structurally racist consequences of failing to do so.
As individuals and in groups, educators contribute to the social environment of STEM culture and wield direct control over pedagogical methods. The effects of social factors within the learning environment and pedagogical methods on racial/ethnic disparities are significant. Qualitative studies of STEM culture as experienced by undergraduates, carried out using ethnographic methods, have documented the influence of negative social interactions with peers and instructors (11) in the decisions of students from historically marginalized backgrounds to leave STEM majors. Pedagogical methods that reduce racial/ethnic achievement gaps, including active learning approaches (12) and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) (13), have now matured and been assessed across multiple educators and educational contexts. The success of any pedagogical method, however, depends on implementation by educators, who have racial biases (14) that can become associated with their students’ educational outcomes (15). The attitudes of educators (16) about how to address race/ethnicity in the educational context matter in the experiences of students, regardless of the model of diversity (colorblindness versus multiculturalism) they espouse (17). Principles of inclusive pedagogy (18) therefore include instructor belief in the potential for all students to succeed, as well as a commitment to provide diverse modes of engagement in, and expression of, learning. Thus, the beliefs, attitudes, and pedagogical practices of individual educators (19) must be considered together as integral to the path toward achieving inclusive excellence.
Challenges (20) to the shifting of educator beliefs, attitudes, and pedagogical practices in the pursuit of inclusive excellence include the pervasiveness of deficit thinking, racial bias (explicit and implicit), white fragility, abdication of responsibility for race/ethnicity-based persistence and achievement gaps, lack of social and institutional support, and lack of accountability for change. These factors are relevant at the individual, collective, and institutional levels, interact with one another, and are part and parcel of systemic racism.
The term ‘deficit thinking’ has various definitions in the education literature, but the core idea has been previously suggested (21) by scholars applying critical race theory to education research to have four hallmark features, all related to systemic racism. These features include: a blame-the-victim orientation that ignores the impact of systemic racism; an anchoring in meritocratic/colorblind ideologies that discount the impact of systemic racism; a pervasive and implicit nature of the thinking that permeates discourse, policy, and practices in the social and educational context; and reinforcement of hegemonic systems that perpetuate inequities. Interventions that are aimed at addressing disparities, but espouse deficit frameworks, are thus not expected to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Anti-deficit achievement frameworks (22), in contrast, aim to understand and amplify factors that promote student success. Attempting to shift focus from the experiences of students (impact) to the sensibilities of educators (intent) can elicit fragility. Fragility on the part of educators is an obstacle to inclusive excellence because it triggers a reversion to deficit models for understanding disparities as a defense mechanism. The inclusive excellence model puts the onus on educators and institutions to deliver an educational model in which all learners can thrive. To accept that the argument for inclusive excellence is not for the lowering of academic standards but for the enhancement of access to STEM education through culture change and improvement of pedagogy will require a radical shift in beliefs and attitudes among educators.
Assuming we are able to achieve inclusive excellence in STEM, who, then, will excel? As we approach inclusive excellence in STEM, the expectation is that participation and achievement in STEM fields will diversify. The rates of participation and success of individuals from historically marginalized backgrounds may grow to match or exceed their demographic proportions. Noting the improved representation, will we be ready to conclude that we are achieving a more profound form of excellence than its antecedent, or will we instead interpret the demographic shifts as a reduction in quality, and therefore, value? Economically undervalued occupations are associated with academically undervalued educational programs in a societal context where the primary function of higher education is to enhance the individual’s economic potential. The literature in the sociology of labor suggests that as STEM fields diversify, labor (as distinct from work product) in these fields will be devalued. Changes in the race-gender composition of fields have repeatedly been shown to result in economic devaluation of labor, for example, by erosion of pay (23). This pattern is evident in STEM professions such as medicine, where documented race- and gender-based disparities are related to disparities in earnings by specialty (24), and the technology sector, where the racial wage gap (25) for tech workers is on the rise as the sector diversifies. Thus, diversity, equity, and inclusion likely carry a penalty in a broader context of historical white supremacy and opportunity hoarding. In anticipation of a future in which we are capable of recognizing and embracing the ideal of inclusive excellence in higher education, we must therefore pursue not only improvements in pedagogical approaches but also efforts to visualize and destigmatize inclusion through antiracism (26).
Works Cited
(1)Williams DA, Berger JB, Mcclendon SA (2005) Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions. Association of American Colleges and Universities: 39.
(2)Millhiser I (2021) The Supreme Court case that could end affirmative action, explained. Vox march 2, 2021. https://www.vox.com/22301135/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-college-race-students-for-fair-admission-ed-blum
(3)Wine J, Janson N, Wheeless S, Hunt-White T (2011) 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/09) Full-scale Methodology Report (ed.gov)
(4)Riegle-Crumb C, King B, and Irizarry Y (2019) Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educational Researcher, 48 (3), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19831006, Corrigendum https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19849410.
(5)National Association of Colleges and Employers Winter 2021 Salary Survey Executive Summary. Available at: https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedfiles/files/2021/publication/executive-summary/2021-nace-salary-survey-winter-executive-summary.pdf
(6)Tilly C (2000) Relational Studies of Inequality. Contemporary Sociology. 29(6), 782-785. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2654085
(7)Tilly C (1997) Durable inequality. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520221703/durable-inequality
(8)Tilly C (2007) Unequal access to scientific knowledge. Journal of Human Development, 8(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880701371133
(9)Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students' Diverse Pathways. Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Engineering; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Malcom S, Feder M, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 May 18. https://doi.org/10.17226/21739
(10)May 2019 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
(11)Holland DG (2019) Chapter 9: The Struggle to Belong and Thrive. In E Seymour and A Hunter (Eds.). Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in STEM Education Springer Nature Switzerland AG, (excerpt on Belonging, Institutional Climate, and STEM Persistence), pp. 300-318. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-25304-2.
(12)Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, Chambwe N, Cintrón DL, Cooper JD, Dunster G, Grummer JA, Hennessey K, Hsiao J, Iranon N, Jones L, Jordt H, Keller M, Lacey ME, Littlefield CE, Lowe A, Newman S, Okolo V, Olroyd S, Peecook BR, Pickett SB, Slager DL, Caviedes-Solis IW, Stanchak KE, Sundaravardan V, Camila Valdebenito, Williams CR, Zinsli K, Freeman S. (2020) Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (12) 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
(13)Penner MR, Sathy V, Hogan KA. (2021) Inclusion in neuroscience through high impact courses. Neurosci Lett. 750: 135740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135740
(14)Starck, J. G., Riddle, T., Sinclair, S., & Warikoo, N. (2020). Teachers Are People Too: Examining the Racial Bias of Teachers Compared to Other American Adults. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912758
(15)Van den Bergh L, Denessen E, Hornstra L, Voeten M, Holland RW. The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. Am Educ Res J. 2010;47:497–527. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594
(16)Auerbach AJJ, Andrews TC. Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: a large-scale qualitative investigation of instructor thinking. Int J STEM Educ. 2018;5(1):19. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-018-0112-9
(17)Plaut, VC, Thomas, KM, Hurd K, Romano CA (2018). Do Color Blindness and Multiculturalism Remedy or Foster Discrimination and Racism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418766068
(18)Florian L (2015), Conceptualising Inclusive Pedagogy: The Inclusive Pedagogical Approach in Action. In JM Deppeler, T Loreman, R Smith & L Florian (Eds.) Inclusive Pedagogy Across the Curriculum (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 7), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000007001.
(19)Killpack TL, & Melón LC (2016) Toward Inclusive STEM Classrooms: What Personal Role Do Faculty Play? CBE life sciences education 15(3), es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0020
(20)Haynes C, Patton LD (2019) From Racial Resistance to Racial Consciousness: Engaging White STEM Faculty in Pedagogical Transformation. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 22(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458919829845
(21)Patton Davis L, Museus S (2019). What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research. Currents, 1(1), 117-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110.
(22)Harper SR (2010) An anti‐deficit achievement framework for research on students of color in STEM. New Directions in Institutional Research, 148:63-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.362
(23)Catanzarite L (2003) Race-Gender Composition and Occupational Pay Degradation, Social Problems 50(1): 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.1.14
(24)Ly DP, Seabury SA, Jena AB (2016) Differences in incomes of physicians in the United States by race and sex: observational study. BMJ, 353 :i2923. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2923
(25)2019 State of Salaries Report. https://hired.com/page/state-of-salaries
(26)Cross KJ (2020) Racism is the manifestation of White supremacy and antiracism is the answer. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4): 625-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20362
Alo C. Basu is a neuroscientist and undergraduate neuroscience educator. Her research is focused on understanding the effects of environmental factors on neuroplasticity, behavior, cognition, and susceptibility to neuropsychiatric disorders. She is on the faculty at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. She thanks Sally Seraphin, Ara Francis, Jumi Hayaki, Anupam Basu, Siddhartan Govindasamy, Madeline Vargas, Mays Imad, Deanne Buffalari, Veronica Acosta Martinez, Jonathan Harwell, and Regina Burris for helpful comments and discussion.
(c) 2021 Alo C. Basu