Considering the Interest-Convergence Dilemma in STEM Education

  1. Three patterns emerged from the data: (a) the emphasis on compositional diversity, (b) a cost-benefits approach toward diversity, and (c) emphasizing benefits for faculty from majority populations. Each pattern reflected a measured approach to the challenge of diversity in STEM education, paying little attention to larger structural norms that marginalize underrepresented students.
  2. Most program administrators participating in the study identify increasing the enrollment and persistence of underrepresented students as the primary goal for their program. These goals are driven by mandates from upper-level administrators (department heads and/or college-level deans) who considered numbers to be the most significant measure for improving the climate.
  3. While broadening participation through programs targeting underrepresented individuals is presented as a diversity initiative, the emphasis on numbers does little to improve the racial/ethnic climate for underrepresented students. Additionally, as enrollment goals are not reached or become stagnant, outcomes are often attributed to a lack of merit or interest from the traditionally underrepresented group, rather than the continuation of practices and attitudes that marginalize these students.
  4. While developing and maintaining a strong critical mass of under-represented students in the department is important, program administrators suggested that these efforts must be part of a multi-pronged approach to the complex challenge of creating and maintaining an inclusive community.
  5. There is a tendency in STEM education to blame academic failure on individual attributes (or lack thereof ), rather than considering the role of marginalizing attitudes and practices in shaping student experiences.
  6. Many diversity program administrators described an intense budgeting process in which they experienced overwhelming pressure from their superiors to minimize costs while maintaining or improving enrollment and persistence outcomes.
  7. The authors found little evidence of a consistent, longitudinal investment in equity initiatives that addressed structural barriers such as department climate and/or faculty awareness of diversity issues in STEM education.
  8. The cost-benefit approach described by participants in the study reflects the notion that support(s) for diversity programs are present but only to the point where they do not interfere with the overall revenue-generating efforts of the academic unit.
  9. Diversity program administrators indicate that, while they invited all faculty members in their department to participate, the core group of initial supporters is small, primarily comprised of faculty from underrepresented backgrounds.
  10. At most campuses in the study, to expand faculty participation in STEM diversity programs outside the committed few, directors must articulate benefits that extend beyond concerns about educational equity. They include: (a) highlighting industry mandates for a diverse workforce, (b) additional financial incentives (e.g., summer salary), and (c) emphasis on diversity in request for proposals (RFP) from large granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation.
  11. Diversity program administrators state that support from faculty benefits underrepresented students. Faculty participation fosters increased research opportunities, formal mentoring, and aspirational communication about STEM profession.
  12. Administrators noted that diversity efforts are primarily shaped by external stakeholders (e.g., industry, external funding requirements) rather than by an institutional desire for sustainable and transformative changes of inequitable environments.
  13. The study captures observations and experiences from administrators that institutional concepts of diversity do not fully address systematic inequalities that limit participation of traditionally underrepresented students in STEM education. Rather, it seems that diversity is treated mostly as a rhetorical commodity, used to buffer institutions from directly addressing the roots of inequality in STEM education: first, a standardized system for selecting STEM talent that privileges student from particular backgrounds; second, persistent stereotypes that perpetuate, by default, the notion that underrepresented students in STEM education must prove themselves to be capable; and, third, the myth of meritocracy that provides a comfortable rationale for maintaining the status quo.
  14. Moving toward STEM equity means giving more attention to institutional transformation for retention as opposed to individual development for persistence.