Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes in students' early STEM courses at six research universities.

Background: Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students' first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. Results: We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students' first post-secondary STEM experiences. Conclusions: STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7.

"Figuring out your place at a school like this:" Intersectionality and sense of belonging among STEM and non-STEM college students.

BACKGROUND: Students' sense of belonging in college-an individual's feelings of contentment, mattering, importance, and "finding one's place" in a social setting-can influence choice of major and career trajectory. We contribute to the belongingness literature through a mixed methods intersectional study of students attending a STEM-focused public university we call Meadow State University (MSU). We assess the potential for students' intersecting social identities to differentially influence their experiences with intersectional oppression-subjection to multiple systems of oppression due to simultaneous membership in more than one marginalized group-that, in turn, may influence their college pathways. In addition, we explore whether intersectional differences affect sense of belonging differently in STEM and non-STEM majors. We employ a mixed-methods approach, informed by critical quantitative methods and in-depth interviews. We utilize quantitative institutional data measuring college satisfaction, expressed as "willingness to return" to the same university, for over 3,000 students during two academic years (2013-14 and 2016-17). Survey data explores college satisfaction as an indicator of intersectional differences in student experiences. Then, we analyze 37 in-depth interviews, collected between 2014-2016 at the same institution, to further contextualize the intersectional variation suggested by survey results. RESULTS: Willingness to return is influenced by major, as well as academic, social, and campus belonging. Moreover, the extent to which these factors affected outcomes additionally varied by race/ethnicity, gender, family income, other background factors, and the ways these factors may intersect. Important components of academic belonging included faculty-student interactions, perceptions of academic support, and a privileging of STEM degree programs and students over non-STEM students and their degree programs at MSU. Faculty responsiveness and high impact practices like internships played an important role, particularly in STEM programs. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that, particularly for students of color and those subject to intersectional oppression due to multiple marginalized identities, satisfaction with academics did not always outweigh deficiencies in other areas of campus life shaping belongingness. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed-methods approach contributes insights into how and why students' background, individual choices, and institutional practices concurrently-and intersectionally-influence their ability to form a sense of belonging on campus. Structural changes are required to end practices that support intersecting systems of oppression by favoring White, upper-income men as the "default" STEM students in the U.S. Our research supports growing evidence that institutions must actively build models of inclusion for underrepresented and marginalized groups that address inequitable and unjust practices, providing transformative mentoring and educational guidance that attends to intersectional oppression, in order to effectively support the next generation of women and scholars of color.

Integrating Critical Approaches into Quantitative STEM Equity Work.

The recent anti-racist movements in the United States have inspired a national call for more research on the experiences of racially marginalized and minoritized students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. As researchers focused on promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, we contend that STEM education must, as a discipline, grapple with how analytic approaches may not fully support equity efforts. We discuss how researchers and educational practitioners should more critically approach STEM equity analyses and why modifying our approaches matters for STEM equity goals. Engaging with equity as a process rather than a static goal, we provide a primer of reflective questions to assist researchers with framing, analysis, and interpretation of student-level data frequently used to identify disparities and assess course-level and programmatic interventions. This guidance can inform analyses conducted by campus units such as departments and programs, but also across universities and the scientific community to enhance how we understand and address systemic inequity in STEM fields.

Perceived COVID-19 health threat increases psychological distress among Black Americans.

The present study used data from the American Trends Panel to examine the interplay between the perceived COVID-19 health threat, discriminatory beliefs in medical settings, and psychological distress among Black Americans. We measured psychological distress as an average of five items modified from two established scales and used self-reports of perceived COVID-19 health threat and beliefs about discrimination in medical settings as focal predictors. Ordinary least squares regression was used to examine these relationships. Holding all else constant, we found that perceived COVID-19 health threat and the belief that Black Americans face racial discrimination in medical settings were both positively and significantly associated with higher levels of psychological distress. We also found a significant perceived COVID-19 health threat by belief about discrimination in medical settings interaction in the full model. Future studies should assess how these relationships vary across age groups and over time.

Between (Racial) Groups and a Hard Place: An Exploration of Social Science Approaches to Race and Genetics, 2000-2014.

As the social sciences expand their involvement in genetic and genomic research, more information is needed to understand how theoretical concepts are applied to genetic data found in social surveys. Given the layers of complexity of studying race in relation to genetics and genomics, it is important to identify the varying approaches used to discuss and operationalize race and identity by social scientists. The present study explores how social scientists have used race, ethnicity, and ancestry in studies published in four social science journals from 2000 to 2014. We identify not only how race, ethnicity, and ancestry are classified and conceptualized in this growing area of research, but also how these concepts are incorporated into the methodology and presentation of results, all of which structure the discussion of race, identity, and inequality. This research indicates the slippage between concepts, classifications, and their use by social scientists in their genetics-related research. The current study can assist social scientists with clarifying their use and interpretations of race and ethnicity with the incorporation of genetic data, while limiting possible misinterpretations of the complexities of the connection between genetics and the social world.

Institutional origins of health care-associated infection knowledge: lessons from an analysis of articles about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus published in leading biomedical journals from 1960-2009.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research journals are important because peer reviewed research is viewed as more legitimate and trustworthy than non-peer reviewed work. Therefore, it is important to know how knowledge transmitted through academic biomedical journals is produced. This article asks if some organizations are more likely to produce research than others and if organizational setting is linked with an article's impact, as measured by citation counts. METHODS: Using research on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as a case study, we examined the role that hospitals, universities, public health agencies, and other organizations have in shaping an emerging research area. We collected public data on the organizational affiliations of researchers who authored 1,721 articles in general interest and selected specialty journals. RESULTS: MRSA research appears to have evolved in stages that require the participation of different types of organizations. Additionally, our analyses indicate that an author's organizational affiliation predicts citation counts, even when controlling for other factors. CONCLUSION: Organizations vary greatly in their ability to produce research, and this should be taken into account by those who manage or award funds to research organizations.

Methods Beyond Methods: A Model for Africana Graduate Methods Training.

A holistic graduate education can impart not just tools and knowledge, but critical positioning to fulfill many of the original missions of Africana Studies programs set forth in the 1960s and 1970s. As an interdisciplinary field with many approaches to examining the African Diaspora, the methodological training of graduate students can vary across graduate programs. Although taking qualitative methods courses are often required of graduate students in Africana Studies programs, and these programs offer such courses, rarely if ever are graduate students in these programs required to take quantitative methods courses, let alone have these courses offered in-house. These courses can offer Africana Studies graduate students new tools for their own research, but more importantly, improve their knowledge of quantitative research of diasporic communities. These tools and knowledge can assist with identifying flawed arguments about African-descended communities and their members. This article explores the importance of requiring and offering critical quantitative methods courses in graduate programs in Africana Studies, and discusses the methods requirements of one graduate program in the field as an example of more rigorous training that other programs could offer graduate students.