An official website of the United States government
Academic AbstractAdvantaged group allies have multiple motives for supporting equality, raising questions about their sincerity. We draw upon the covariation model of attributions to explain how disadvantaged group members make attributions about whether advantaged group “allies” are sincerely motivated to empower the disadvantaged group. We propose an Attribution-Identity Model of Sincerity (AIMS) which posits that disadvantaged group members view advantaged group members as sincere allies when they support equality in the presence of inhibitory causes and in the absence of facilitative causes, exceed expectations for the advantaged group, and provide support across time and contexts. Furthermore, those who identify strongly with their disadvantaged group and perceive intergroup inequality as illegitimate are most motivated to ascertain the sincerity of advantaged group members’ allyship. AIMS suggests how members of disadvantaged groups seek to maximize benefits and minimize risks of advantaged group members’ allyship. Public AbstractAdvantaged group members (e.g., men, White Americans) can act as allies for disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, Americans belonging to minoritized racial groups), but members of disadvantaged groups sometimes have reason to question whether their motives are sincere. We argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when they support equality when they do not stand to benefit from it and even when they stand to lose. We also argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when their support for equality goes beyond expectations for their advantaged group, consistently over time, and is not limited to particular situations, forms, or contexts. Members of disadvantaged groups like sincere allies, want to work with them, and feel safe around them. Sincere allies also serve as moral exemplars to other members of advantaged groups.
more »
« less
From intent to impact—The decline of broader impacts throughout an NSF project life cycle
Abstract It is important for funding agencies to evaluate if scientists accomplish their research goals. By comparing a representative sample of National Science Foundation abstracts and project outcome reports (PORs) from 2014 to 2017, this article investigates whether scientists attain the broader impacts they propose. We find that the number of broader impacts proposed in the abstracts is significantly higher than the number of broader impacts reported in the PORs. The trend is common across directorates and type of impact, except when impacts serve advantaged groups. Only the number of broader impacts for advantaged groups increases from the abstract to the POR. Despite the difference between proposed impact and reported impact, our study does not conclude that scientists are delinquent or disingenuous when they propose their research. Rather, we question the capacity of current frameworks to capture the quality of impacts and to weigh the relative importance of impacts that serve marginalized groups versus those that sustain the status quo.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1926494
- PAR ID:
- 10390224
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Research Evaluation
- Volume:
- 32
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0958-2029
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 348-355
- Size(s):
- p. 348-355
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)A major goal of government and non-profit scientific funding agencies is to support research and development (R&D) that has broad impacts. This study proposes a new framework, called the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion (IIC), to determine whether research benefits marginalized communities, reduces inequality, and encourages inclusive innovation. To test the framework, the study analyzes NSF sponsored nanotechnology grant abstracts from 2013 to 2017. We find that 109 out of the 300 grants feature research and grant activities that are inclusive, while 235 out of the 300 grants have research and grant activities that either maintain the status quo or predominately target advantaged groups. Of the 109 grants with inclusive broader impacts, 9 of them involve inclusive research that is intrinsic to the underlying work. In comparison there are 102 grants that feature inclusive research that is directly related to the research. Of those 102 direct-inclusive grants, 99 of them relate to broadening participation of women and underrepresented minority populations is science fields.more » « less
-
Abstract Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group‐based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4–8 years;N = 123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle‐Eastern/North‐African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not‐specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third‐party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged‐group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group‐relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs. Research HighlightsA total of 123 4–8‐year‐olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third‐party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy.Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members.With age, advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group.Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within.more » « less
-
Abstract Ecologists—especially those new to the field—are tasked with finding relevant literature matching their research interests and deciding upon a suitable venue for the publication of their work. To provide a roadmap for early career researchers to identify journals aligned with their interests, we analyzed major research themes found across the top 30 ecology journals and three high‐impact multi‐disciplinary journals (Nature, PNAS,andScience), utilizing an automated content analysis (ACA) of 84,841 article abstracts, titles, and author keywords published over the last four decades. Journals clustered into 10 distinct groups based on 46 research themes identified byACA. We examined the frequency of ecological themes in each of these journal groups to identify the journals most associated with each theme. We found three themes (anthropogenic impacts, disease,andtraits) that occurred at a high frequency in the high‐impact multi‐disciplinary journal group containingNature, PNAS,andScience. Themes that increased in frequency over the last four decades, such asclimate change, traits, anthropogenic, andcellular biology, were found more often in journals with higher impact factors, indicating that emerging research themes in ecology will likely become of interest to a broader readership over time. Our study provides a thematic review as a potential roadmap for junior ecologists to browse and publish journal articles.more » « less
-
Reversing the Lens on Public Engagement with Science: Positive Benefits for Participating ScientistsAbstract Scientists increasingly seek to respond to urgent calls for equity in science but may be unsure how to engage with underserved public groups. Prisons, jails, and detention centers are venues in which scientists may use their educational privilege to serve and empower diverse populations that are underserved by science education and underrepresented in science disciplines. We reversed the lens that traditionally focuses on the benefits of public engagement to the audience by documenting the impacts of delivering science lectures on the scientists who offered seminars to incarcerated people. The scientists who engaged in carceral settings gained professional benefits, shifted their preconceptions of incarcerated people, raised their perceived value of community engagement, and increased their interest in social justice. Some took direct actions for social change. This program could model effective engagement for other underserved groups in our society. We provide guidance to initiate such a program in other institutions.more » « less
