skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: DESIGNING FOR DIVERSITY: INCLUSIVE SAMPLING
Experts in human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) and related fields have the ability and responsibility to broadly serve  the needs and goals of diverse people, which encompasses issues of inclusion, equity, and justice. Importantly, HF/E designers, researchers, and practitioners can address these aims both as the intended outcomes of their work and how the work itself is conducted. Both pathways support progress toward more inclusive and equitable organizations and societies. This paper focuses upon one aspect of inclusive methodology—strategies for inclusive sampling. Sampling is an important focus because of its fundamental role in defining the internal and external validity of findings. Moreover, sampling is how diverse participants and perspectives are incorporated (or not), and thus represents an early way that exclusion, inequity, or inaccessibility may manifest. Three heuristic questions and six sets of strategies are briefly articulated: (1) purposive sampling, (2) oversampling, (3) community sampling, (4) removing barriers of distance, cost, communication, and awareness, (5) building trust, and (6) inclusive demographic categories. A variety of sources are cited to facilitate readers’ further consideration of these issues in their own HF/E endeavors.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1712328
PAR ID:
10377019
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Ergodesign & HCI
Volume:
9
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2317-8876
Page Range / eLocation ID:
67; 81
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The purpose of this research paper is to understand how diverse students are incorporated into the social structure of a large enrollment first-year engineering design course. Despite previous work demonstrating the benefits of diverse individuals in engineering, little work has examined how diverse students are incorporated into the social networks that exist within engineering classrooms. Social interactions are one of the most influential sources for integration into communities of practice. Through understanding how students interact and the structure of these interactions, we can elucidate how the engineering community includes members of underrepresented populations. Previous social network analysis (SNA) studies have scrutinized student classroom interactions. These studies typically attempt to link classroom interactions to academic outcomes (i.e., grades). In this study, we start to shift the focus away from connecting student interactions to academic outcomes and examine how the structure of student interactions can encourage an inclusive environment in a formal engineering environment. SNA data was collected via an online survey (n = 502, 74% response rate) one month into the semester at a Western land-grant institution. The survey asked first-year engineering students to indicate with whom they had interacted using a pre-populated list of the class roster and open-ended questions. The number of students that were mentioned by a participant (out-degree) is interpreted as a proxy of their sociableness. Whereas, the number of times a student was mentioned by others (in-degree) is interpreted as popularity. We posit that in an inclusive network structure the social behaviors (i.e., in and out-degree) will be independent of students’ demographic characteristics (e.g., race and gender). Nonparametric hypothesis testing (i.e., Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test) was used to investigate the effects of gender and race on both in and out-degree. Results indicate that the social structure of the first-year engineering community is inclusive of both gender and race. Specifically, results indicated no significant differences for in-degree based on measures of race and gender, for students who provided race and gender information. Out-degree was not significantly different based on race. However, women did demonstrate significantly higher out-degree scores (i.e., greater sociableness) than their peers. Building on previous SNA literature, the increased connections expressed by women may lead to increased learning gains or performance within engineering. Results indicated that the social structure of this first-year engineering course, as indicated by in-degree and out-degree, is not significantly different for underrepresented groups. This result begins to illustrate a more complex story than the existing literature has documented of engineering as an unwelcoming environment for underrepresented students. Future work will explore how these structures do or do not persist over time and how individuals develop attitudes towards diverse individuals as a result of these interactions. We hope that the results of this work will provide practical ways to improve engineering climate for underrepresented students. 
    more » « less
  2. This work-in-progress paper examines four free online courses addressing LGBTQ+ topics and issues and provides recommendations for creating new content and resources for allies in higher education. This exploratory work is guided by the following questions: What free LGBTQ+ courses are available for learners and educators? What content do these courses cover? What are the overlaps among these courses and what new strategies could be adopted when developing new LGBTQ+ resources for people in academia? The scope of this paper explores the content and instructional strategies of courses offered on Coursera, a massive open online course (MOOC) platform. Our preliminary findings indicate that the courses offer many insights and strategies for becoming an ally, fostering inclusive environments, and showing up for LGBTQ+ students; however, they put a smaller emphasis on LGBTQ+ academics and their experiences. Based on these findings, recommendations for educators and course developers are suggested. 
    more » « less
  3. Universities have been expanding undergraduate data science programs. Involving graduate students in these new opportunities can foster their growth as data science educators. We describe two programs that employ a near-peer mentoring structure, in which graduate students mentor undergraduates, to (a) strengthen their teaching and mentoring skills and (b) provide research and learning experiences for undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. In the Data Science for Social Good program, undergraduate participants work in teams to tackle a data science project with social impact. Graduate mentors guide project work and provide just-in-time teaching and feedback. The Stanford Mentoring in Data Science course offers training in effective and inclusive mentorship strategies. In an experiential learning framework, enrolled graduate students are paired with undergraduate students from non-R1 schools, whom they mentor through weekly one-on-one remote meetings. In end-of-program surveys, mentors reported growth through both programs. Drawing from these experiences, we developed a self-paced mentor training guide, which engages teaching, mentoring and project management abilities. These initiatives and the shared materials can serve as prototypes of future programs that cultivate mutual growth of both undergraduate and graduate students in a high-touch, inclusive, and encouraging environment. 
    more » « less
  4. Science communication plays a pivotal role in cultural engagement and life-long science learning. However, historically marginalized communities remain undervalued in these efforts due to practices that prioritize specific individuals, such as those who are affluent, college-educated, able-bodied, and already scientifically engaged. Science communicators can avoid these practices by acknowledging the intersecting historical and cultural dimensions surrounding science beyond those of the majority culture and practicing inclusive science communication efforts. Here, we define and describe the importance of inclusive science communication and outline how we use an asset-based community engagement framework in a place-based education program's communication practices with rural communities in the Southwestern United States. We describe how we designed our communication spaces, found our voice, and effectively communicate with non-English speaking and bilingual communities. We provide examples from the We are Water program, demonstrating how we utilize inclusive science communication practices to engage more widely with diverse communities and create space for community voices to be heard and shared. We conclude that the use of inclusive science communication strategies and an asset-based community engagement framework has allowed the We are Water program to connect with rural communities while communicating in a way that elevates historically marginalized voices, creates space for communities to share their own experiences through memories and stories, and honors diverse perspectives and ways of knowing. 
    more » « less
  5. Makerspaces, intended for open and collaborative learning, often struggle to attract a diverse group of users, particularly concerning gender diversity. These issues include makerspaces becoming associated primarily with white male students, gendered connotations of machines and materials, and women’s perceived lack of self-efficacy in using makerspace tools. As a result, women may view makerspaces as unwelcoming, and societal stereotypes can affect their engagement in these spaces. Efforts to create more inclusive makerspaces are essential to fully realize the potential of makerspaces, encourage and boost confidence in marginalized groups to pursue careers in different engineering areas, and promote a diverse and collaborative maker culture. Moreover, defining makerspaces is challenging due to conflicting perceptions, the uniqueness of spaces, and the abstract elements in these environments, revealing a gap between academic definitions and the diverse voices of people interested in utilizing makerspaces. Our goal is to see if there are differences in the fundamental academic makerspace definition and makerspace definition by different genders, providing insights into how inclusive our makerspace is. We focus on gender because our interviewees focused more on gender than other identity markers in our conversations, but we also report additional demographic data that likely impacted participants’ experiences, namely, their racial and ethnic identities. Our corpus is drawn from semi-structured interviews with students enrolled in an introductory first-year engineering course. Out of 28 students interviewed, 10 identified as women, 16 as men, one as both women and questioning or unsure, and one as women and nonbinary and transgender. In terms of racial/ethnic identifications, nine participants identified as White or Caucasian; six identified as Latinx or Hispanic; five identified as Latinx or Hispanic, White or Caucasian; three identified as Black or African American; two identified as Asian, Desi, or Asian American; one identified as Latinx or Hispanic, Native American or Alaska Native; one identified as Southwest Asian, Middle Eastern, or North African, White or Caucasian; and one identified as Native African. In this ongoing study, from interview transcripts, we extracted participant responses to questions regarding their definitions of and impressions of makerspaces to identify commonalities and differences. Specifically, we use natural language processing techniques to extract word frequency and centrality and synthesize commonalities into a shared definition of a makerspace. We also separated responses from participants by gender identities to evaluate how definitions varied with gender. These emergent definitions are compared with commonly accepted definitions derived from research papers. Additionally, we conduct a complementary discourse analysis of students’ definitions and impressions of makerspaces, qualitatively examining how diverse students characterize ways of being and doing in the makerspace. 
    more » « less