Search for: All records

Abstract How individuals come to perceive themselves in STEM is predicated on their understanding of what it means to be a member of the STEM community. This association is consequential when considering the perpetuation of white male ownership of STEM knowledge and power that forces learners identifying with groups systemically marginalized by racial and gender discrimination to adopt particular norms, values, and behaviors to gain recognition. In effect, these expectations help to maintain masculinized Discourses as STEM professionals are encultured to apply the same recognition criteria to which they were judged themselves. We examine how these Discourses are maintained even as learners who identify with groups that carry histories of systemic marginalization by racist, sexist, and elitist practices gain access to STEM communities. Specifically, we explore how university STEM students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution in the United States articulate gendered expectations of STEM membership through their characterization of themselves and others as (not) STEM people. Drawing from theories in Discourse, social identity, and feminist critiques of science, we describe how students implicitly recognize STEM identity in gendered ways. We discuss how our findings illuminate the mechanisms by which STEM recognition is afforded by pointing to its dependence on masculinized displays of STEM performances, competence, and interests, leading to a cycle of marginalization as learners are encultured to perpetuate existing STEM Discourses in their recognition of others. We discuss research implications for measurements of STEM identity that do not account for gendered Discourses and offer practical implications for the design of learning experiences that co‐opt existing Discourses to inoculate gendered perceptions of a STEM person prototype. Lastly, we present a case for elevating the role of maternal caregivers and family immigration histories in STEM identity construction. 

Concepts in science education such as “science identity” and “science capital” are informed by dominant epistemological and ontological positions, which translate into assumptions about what counts as science and whose science counts. In this theoretical paper we draw on decolonial and antiracist perspectives to examine these assumptions in light of the heterogeneous onto-epistemological and axiological values, cultural perspectives, and contributions of nondominant groups, and specifically of those who have been historically marginalized based on their gender, race, ethnic, age, and/or social class identity. Building on these arguments, we critique deficit-based approaches to science teaching, learning, and research, including those that focus on systemic injustice, yet leave intact dominant framings of the scientific enterprise, which are exclusionary and meritocratic. As an alternative, we offer a design of science teaching and learning for the pluriverse—“a world where many worlds fit”. This alternative allows us to reconstruct science and science-related “outcomes,” such as identity, in the service of cultural, epistemic, and linguistic pluralism. We close the paper with the idea that because mainstream theories reproduce deficit framings and educational injustices, we must engage with decolonial1 theories of pluriversality and discuss different onto-epistemologies to be able to grapple with existing social, racial, environmental injustices, and land-based devastations. 

Despite the wealth of research exploring science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) identity and career goals in both formal and informal settings, existing literature does not consider STEM identity for undergraduate students pursuing health and medical careers through STEM pathways. We address this gap by examining the STEM identity of undergraduate STEM majors on pre-med/health tracks as it compares with that of other STEM majors, thus focusing on a population that is chronically understudied in STEM education research. We surveyed 440 undergraduate STEM students enrolled in entry-level STEM courses to assess their STEM identities and three identity precursors: interest, performance–competence, and recognition. Through regression analyses accounting for gender, major, and perceived home support around STEM, we found that pre-med/health students were more likely to have higher STEM identity and recognition scores than their peers; we did not detect a significant difference for performance–competence or interest in STEM. Although there is little tracking of pre-med/health students’ ultimate career attainment, the implications of our findings support a potential for sustaining pre-med/health students while simultaneously creating pathways to other STEM pursuits for the nearly 60% of those who do not enter medical school by offering participation in experiences that affirm their STEM identities. 

Abstract Identity development frameworks provide insight into why and to what extent individuals engage in STEM‐related activities. While studies of “STEM identity” often build off previously validated disciplinary and/or science identity frameworks, quantitative analyses of constructs that specifically measure STEM identity and its antecedents are scarce, making it challenging for researchers or practitioners to apply a measurement‐based perspective of participation in opportunities billed as “STEM.” In this study, we tested two expanded structural equation models of STEM identity development, building off extensions of science and disciplinary‐identity frameworks, that incorporated additional factors relevant to identity development: gender, ethnicity, home science support, parental education, and experiencing science talk in the home. Our models test theorized relationships between interest, sense of recognition, performance‐competence, and identity in the context of STEM with undergraduate students (N = 522) enrolled in introductory STEM courses at a Hispanic Serving Institution. Our findings support our measurement of STEM identity and its indicators, providing researchers with a predictive model associated with academic intentions across disciplinary domains in STEM. Further, our expanded model (i.e., Model I+) indicates significant contributions of participant gender, which has a larger indirect effect on STEM identity (β = 0.50) than the direct effect of STEM interest (β = 0.29), and of home support in relation to performance‐competence in academic contexts. Our model also posits a significant contribution of family science talk to sense of recognition as a STEM person, expanding our understandings of the important role of the home environment while challenging prior conceptions of science capital and habitus. We situate our results within a broader discussion regarding the validity of “STEM identity” as a concept and construct in the context of communities often marginalized in STEM fields.