Search for: All records

Instructional practices that attend to students’ cultural motivations and strengths can play an important role in mitigating educational inequities. However, educators increasingly experience backlash for efforts to address educational inequities, raising moral questions about how educators should engage students. Through a national study, we explored how educators’ likelihood of implementing culturally responsive practices (CRPs) (i.e., practices focused on affirming students’ cultural backgrounds) varied according to educators’ individual moral frameworks (i.e., multicultural and colorblind diversity ideologies) and the contextual moral frameworks they encountered among their administrators (i.e., support for educational equity work) and local communities (i.e., DEI sentiment). When their communities were permissive of DEI, teachers who strongly endorsed multiculturalism implemented CRPs frequently, regardless of their administrators’ support for equity work. In DEI-opposed communities, however, pro-multiculturalism educators only implemented CRPs frequently when their administrators supported equity work. In contrast, regardless of community-level DEI sentiment, CRP implementation among educators with weaker endorsement of multiculturalism depended upon administrators’ support for equity work. Results suggest that educators with less well-defined individual moral frameworks about diversity rely upon contextual frameworks to determine their practices, while those with more codified moral frameworks rely upon contextual frameworks primarily when their individual moral frameworks conflict with their community’s. 

\The omission of Native Peoples’ existence, experiences, and perspectives is systematic and widespread across numerous societal domains, referred to as Native omission. In mainstream media, for example, less than 0.5% of representations are of contemporary Native Peoples. We theorize that Native omission is a tool furthering settler colonial goals to oppress and eventually erase Native Peoples. To make this case, we will review both experimental and national survey studies that unpack how Native omission shapes psychological processes among non‐Native and Native individuals and contribute to discrimination, oppression, and disparities facing Native Peoples. We then discuss ways in which Native Peoples are actively resisting Native omission. Finally, we provide a series of policy recommendations to address Native omission and promote Native equity. By making visible the pernicious consequences of omission for Native Peoples, we chart a path for creating a more equitable future. 

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures ( n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.