Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review.more » « less
Black students face repeated racial microaggressions that may challenge their mental health and academic performance in engineering doctoral programs. Researchers attribute this to stereotypes and institutional climates that juxtapose their STEM and racial identities as incongruent. In this article, we analyzed the perceptions of environmental, behavioral, and verbal racial microaggressions of 33 Black doctoral students and postdocs, with a focus on their interactions with non‐Black peers. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews with Black doctoral students from 11 Predominantly White Institutions in the United States. To analyze the experiences of our participants, we utilized two theoretical frameworks: Racial microaggressions and identity nonverification. Across the interviews, participants described various forms of racial microaggressions that greatly challenged their sense of belonging and identities as engineers. This research affirms the need to develop initiatives at the departmental and institutional levels to encourage more inclusive spaces for diverse students in STEM doctoral programs and to combat the types of exclusionary practices found in this study.
Research shows that engineering and computing students who are marginalized by race and/or gender and experience social suffering often wish to challenge social inequities through their vocation, an attribute we refer to as an equity ethic. This study explores how doctoral engineering and computing students develop this attribute even when they do not directly experience social suffering.
We explored the relationship between (a) doctoral engineering and computing students' experiences with social suffering and their development of an equity ethic and (b) their equity ethic and career interests.
We present a thematic analysis of the transcripts of in‐depth, semistructured interviews with 18 engineering and computing PhD students, coding for experiences with social suffering, degree of equity ethic, and their career interests.
Students with an equity ethic who aspired to reduce inequities within their disciplines personally experienced or witnessed social suffering within and outside academia. Students with “high potential” for developing this attribute who aspired to help others with their disciplines acknowledged social suffering. While both those with an equity ethic and those with high potential saw inequities as socially caused, those with an equity ethic reported more impactful experiences with social suffering, resulting in greater empathy and responsibility to respond. Several students described neither altruistic nor social justice concerns (students with low potential) and did not experience social suffering directly or indirectly. Those with an equity ethic or high potential often showed interest in academia.
Most participants expressed concerns for helping others in their occupations. This result suggests a nascent equity ethic that could be cultivated through intentional programmatic efforts.