Search for: All records

Complex problems require complex teams comprised of individuals with different backgrounds, skills and perspectives to work effectively toward their solution. Increasingly, this is being accomplished through the creation of multi-team systems (MTS) that are developed and implemented in alignment with team science-based strategies. MTS are comprised of individual teams with their own goals that are interconnected and work collaboratively toward a larger, common goal. Attitudinal (cohesion, trust, commitment), behavioral (coordination, communication, shared leadership) and cognitive (situational awareness, shared mental models) competencies support MTS effectiveness. Multisector MTS are even more complex, as team members bring aspects of their organizational culture into the MTS, and if priorities and practices are not well aligned, team function and effectiveness can suffer. Thus, for multisector MTS to work, they must begin with a foundational understanding of the component parts, that is, each organization’s culture and priorities, and how – or if – they align for the success of the collaborative. We created a multisector MTS to develop and implement a project funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM) program. The project’s objectives are to: increase the number of domestic low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need obtaining master's degrees in supported disciplines and entering the US STEM workforce; implement and evaluate the impact of our Flexible Internship-Research-Education (FIRE) model, which integrates evidence-based strategies that provide student career and educational development support, on student success; and implement, study and disseminate an MTS model for multi -organizational collaboration toward career and educational development. The partners include four universities – three Carnegie R2 public Historically Black Colleges and Universities and one Carnegie R1 private, highly selective admissions institution – and a major government employer. Six teams comprise our MTS; with the exception of one, each team has representatives from each partner organization. We sought to understand how each organization’s culture influenced – or might potentially influence – team interactions. The guiding research question for this study is: In what ways – positive or negative – do partner organizations’ cultures impact team members’ engagement with the project? We were interested in gauging how organizational culture, operationalized by performance values (rewarding individual performance vs. team performance), communications (transparent vs. need-to-know, clarity, frequency), conflict resolution and collaborative vs. competitive environments, manifested in their engagement with the MTS. We also explored how – or if – their organization’s priorities aligned with the overall project’s aims and what specific areas might be sources of support and/or challenges as the teams progressed. We conducted open-ended structured interviews with eight project team members who each served on at least one of the six teams. We are completing both content and thematic analyses to understand how team members speak about their organizational influences and engagements within and among the teams. We are finding team members are adaptable; regardless of individual or organizational priorities, when challenges arise, they can re-center on the project’s aims and work collaboratively toward student success. We expect results will illuminate factors multisector MTS teams should consider when forming collaborations. 

Racialized faculty have been under-represented in U.S. institutions of higher education for decades and this is exacerbated in STEM disciplines with gender disproportionality. This study deployed a descriptive phenomenological design to capture the experiences of 11 faculty, postdoctoral, and graduate scholars who identified as African American and/or Latinx drawn from two universities in the southern U.S.; one a predominantly White, privately funded school and the other a designated Hispanic-Serving Institution that is publicly funded. We found four main themes (and three subthemes) that captured the shared lived experiences among the participants. We consider these findings through the lens of intersectionality.

 

This research paper describes a study designed to help inform STEM faculty hiring practices at institutions of higher education in the U.S., where over the past two decades, diversity statements have become more popular components of application packages for faculty jobs. The purpose is to explore the ways and extent to which diversity statements are utilized in evaluating faculty applicants. The research questions are: (1) To what extent do universities equip search committees to evaluate applicants’ diversity statements? (2) What are STEM faculty’s perspectives of diversity statements in job applications? This paper is derived from a larger two-phase sequential mixed methods study examining the factors current faculty members and administrators consider important when hiring new STEM faculty. During the first phase, we deployed a nationwide survey to STEM faculty members and administrators who have been involved in faculty searches, with 151 of 216 respondents answering questions specific to diversity statements. About 29% of survey respondents indicated their departments required diversity statements; 59% indicated their institutions did not provide guidance for evaluating them. The second phase was a phenomenological study involving interviews of 25 survey respondents. Preliminary analyses of interview data indicated that a little more than half (52%) of participants’ departments required a diversity statement. Of the departments that required diversity statements, a little more than half used a rubric for evaluation, whether as part of a larger holistic rubric, or as a standalone rubric. For some departments that did not require diversity statements, applicants were required to discuss diversity within their other application materials. Regarding faculty members’ perceptions of diversity statements, some felt that diversity statements were necessary to assess candidates’ beliefs and experiences. Some noted that when diversity is discussed as part of another document and is not required as a stand-alone statement, it feels like the candidate “slaps on a paragraph” about diversity. Others viewed diversity statements as a “bump” that gives candidates “bonus points.” A few faculty felt that diversity statements were “redundant,” and if applicants were passionate about diversity, they would organically discuss it in the other required documents. Many shared frustrations regarding the requirement and evaluation practices. Most participants indicated their postings provided applicants with little to no guidance on what search committees were looking for in submitted diversity statements; they felt it would be beneficial for both the search committee and the applicants to have this guidance. Shared through a traditional lecture, results from this study may be used to help inform strategies for recruiting faculty who are committed to diversity - and ideally, equity and inclusion - and for addressing equity in faculty hiring. 

The lack of racial diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in the United States higher education system. The issue is not only concerning diverse students, but also diverse faculty members. One important contributing factor is the faculty hiring process. To make progress toward equity in hiring decisions, it is necessary to better understand how applicants are considered and evaluated. In this paper, we describe and present our study based on a survey of current STEM faculty members and administrators who examined applicant qualifications and characteristics in STEM faculty hiring decisions.

There are three key findings of the present research. First, we found that faculty members placed different levels of importance on characteristics and qualifications for tenure track hiring and non-tenure track hiring. For example, items related to research were more important when evaluating tenure track applicants, whereas items related to teaching and diversity were more important when evaluating non-tenure track applicants. Second, faculty members’ institutional classification, position, and personal identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) had an impact on their evaluation criteria. For instance, we found men considered some diversity-related items more important than women. Third, faculty members rated the importance of qualifications with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related constructs significantly lower than qualifications that did not specify DEI-related constructs, and this trend held for both tenure track and non-tenure track faculty hiring.

This study was an attempt to address the issue of diversity in STEM faculty hiring at institutions of higher education by examining how applicant characteristics are considered and evaluated in faculty hiring practices. Emphasizing research reputation and postdoctoral reputation while neglecting institutional diversity and equitable and inclusive teaching, research, and service stunt progress toward racial diversity because biases—both implicit and explicit, both positive and negative—still exist. Our results were consistent with research on bias in recruitment, revealing that affinity bias, confirmation bias, and halo bias exist in the faculty hiring process. These biases contribute to inequities in hiring, and need to be addressed before we can reach, sustain, and grow desired levels of diversity.

 

This research paper describes a preliminary analysis of panel summaries of proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM) program. S-STEM provides awards to institutions to fund scholarships and to implement evidence-based strategies to recruit, retain, and graduate students from low-income backgrounds who have the academic potential to succeed in eligible STEM disciplines. The ultimate goal of the program is to build the US STEM workforce. In 2017, Rice University received funding from NSF to support teams of principal investigators and their co- investigators, who were experts in educational or related research areas, to attend a two-day workshop that was developed to help them prepare more competitive proposals to the S-STEM program. The emphasis was on investigators from predominantly undergraduate institutions, primarily those located in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) jurisdictions and/or designated as Minority-Serving Institutions. One of the workshop’s aims was to investigate factors that impact the success (or lack thereof) of proposals to the S-STEM program. We began with examining the feedback participants received from review panels on their proposal submissions. In this case study, we compare panel summaries for five S-STEM proposals submitted from five different institutions, exploring the similarities and differences in the overall reviews, as well as the strengths and weaknesses cited for both awarded and declined proposals that were awarded and declined in the context of their alignment with NSF’s merit review criteria. This is submitted for consideration as a traditional paper presentation. 

Despite efforts over the past few decades to promote diversity and foster inclusive campus climates, there is still underrepresentation of Blacks/ African Americans, Latinx/Hispanics, and Native Americans (including Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives) within the STEM professoriate nationwide. For students who are members of these groups, the culturally isolating experience this deficit creates can weaken one's academic self-perception, and hinder performance in STEM disciplines. This paper explores the relationship between intentionality towards diversity and inclusion in faculty job postings and corresponding faculty demographics at a variety of US postsecondary institutions. The research questions we are investigating are: •In what ways are diversity and inclusion implicitly and explicitly addressed in the evaluated job postings? •Does intentionality towards diversity and inclusion in job postings vary based on the type of position advertised (i.e., tenured/tenure track versus non-tenure-track) or institution type (i.e., Basic Carnegie Classification)? Using HigherEdJobs.com, we conducted an advanced search of all open science and engineering faculty positions containing the keywords "data science", "data engineering", "data analysis", or "data analytics." Each result posted in September 2019 that advertised a full-time tenured/tenure-track or non-tenure track faculty appointment for at least one academic year at a US college or university was recorded. All qualifying job postings were qualitatively analyzed for active, intentional recruitment of URM candidates. Intentionality towards diversity and inclusion varied significantly across job postings. While some had no reference to diversity beyond a required one-sentence equal employment opportunity (EEO) statement, others explicitly addressed inclusion within the announcements, and still others required a standalone diversity statement as part of a complete application. The results will help to inform strategies for recruiting URM faculty in STEM disciplines, which may lead to improved opportunities to create cultures of inclusion and support for diverse students (undergraduate and graduate) and postdoctoral fellows.