Session Information
99 ERC SES 07 G, Gender and Education
Paper Session
Contribution
This study explores the underrepresentation of women academics of colour (WAC) in British STEM academia, building upon a substantial body of literature highlighting the glaring and seemingly intractable lack of diversity within UK STEM faculties and across global STEM academia (WISE, 2019). Beyond numerical inequities, existing evidence points to a higher likelihood of WAC being disproportionately concentrated in junior academic positions, indicative of unequal power relations (APPG, 2021). This is compounded by nuanced issues relating to idealised and masculinised cultures prevalent across STEM disciplines (Carlone and Johnson, 2007) as well as issues of knowledge otherness – referring to how WAC are epistemologically marginalised/silenced (Ong et al., 2018). Even more is the prevailing tendency to prioritise gender as the primary focus in inequity discussions, often overshadowing race (Bhopal and Henderson, 2021), and other categories such as class, age, sexuality, and disability within initiatives and policy actions aimed at promoting equity in STEM. This tendency may, in part, stem from the discomfort surrounding discourses of sexism, racism, and experiences of marginalisation as well as the challenges associated with addressing these issues at institutional levels (Ahmed, 2012).
It is therefore not surprising that while there are substantial scholarly works on the underrepresentation of women in STEM as well as a disproportionate underrepresentation of WAC in British higher education, there remains a dearth of research studies exploring gender-race intersectionality in STEM, particularly within the UK context (e.g., Casad et al., 2021; Ong et al., 2018; most of which are studies conducted in the US). This is a gap this study seeks to support in literature, contributing to pressing calls to decolonise British STEM academia while extending research on the underrepresentation of WAC in STEM beyond gender and race-based discrimination to complex issues relating to epistemological hegemony, cultural conformity, and counter-technologies, all of which are interlinked with the underrepresentation of WAC in STEM. Against this backdrop, the study seeks to address the overarching question of how orientalist power dynamics serve to perpetuate and/or exacerbate inequitable patterns of representation for these women in STEM faculties. More specifically, it explores ways in which WAC’s gender and racial/ethnic identities intersect to constrain their progression, retention, and equitable representation more broadly in STEM. This includes how these women subvert the power of dominant discourses through micro-practices of resistance and techniques of power (Ahmed, 2012; Ong et al., 2018).
In search for answers around the intersectional barriers and the underlying processes that pose obstacles towards equitable representation for these women, I adopt a post-colonial perspective, drawing on Said’s (1978) epistemological conception of orientalism. Said defines this as a discursively constructed power relation between two constructed regions - the ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident’. Underpinning this power relation are discourses that work to explicitly or implicitly present the knowledge and ideas of the West/Occident as ‘developed’ and superior while the Orient/East is essentialised as ‘underdeveloped’ and inferior. In addition to postcolonial scholars, as well as post-colonialist feminists such as Spivak (1988) and Subedi and Daza (2008), I draw on complementary work from Foucauldian poststructuralist feminism. This approach views power relations – including gender - as discursively constructed and fluid (Foucault, 1988; Butler, 1990; Hall, 1996), shifting the study's focus from discursive narratives based on participants’ sense of subjectivity to a structural understanding of how STEM cultures and practices perpetuate inequities on gender and ‘race’ lines.
Method
Underpinned by an interpretivist perspective (Dean, 2018), the study employs a qualitative approach involving 15 online semi-structured interviews facilitated through timeline maps. These maps aided participants in charting pivotal moments and influences shaping their career trajectories which in turn proved useful in unpacking the complexities and dynamics of participants' experiences. Participants encompass WAC of diverse racial groups (including Africans, Afro-Caribbeans, South Asians, and Black Brits), and across various career stages within STEM faculties in seven British universities. Five initial participants were purposively selected drawing on networks established through my professional contacts, employing three primary criteria including participants: 1) self-identifying as women, 2) having African, Afro-Caribbean, South-Asian or black British backgrounds/ethnicities, and 3) working and/or studying in STEM disciplines. Subsequently, the original sample was broadened through a snowballing strategy, wherein participants were asked for referrals. To minimise sampling bias, efforts were made to include individuals who were predominantly colleagues of acquaintances or those recommended by participants interviewed within the study. Adopted for cost-effectiveness and its perceived user-friendliness, Zoom videoconferencing proved vital for facilitating interviews with a diverse and geographically dispersed group of participants (Archibald et al., 2019). Its use was not only safe and essential, preventing COVID-19 infections and mitigating conflicts arising from finding suitable interview spaces, but also environmentally conscious, avoiding unnecessary travel impact on the climate. Conducting the interviews from the privacy of my flat allowed considerable control over disruptions and maintaining confidentiality, yet unanticipated challenges, such as unexpected post deliveries, PC malfunctions, internet issues, and family dynamics, arose. Despite these, Zoom was instrumental in facilitating the interviews and maintaining research progress. Data analysis was conducted using a mix of thematic and discourse analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021) allowing the exploration of key themes, as well as an analysis of the dynamics of the discourses that participants use to articulate their experiences. Interlinked with epistemologically orientalist power dynamics, this informed an analysis of the ways in which discursive practices shape and influence the conduct of WAC in STEM spaces (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). Put together, this analytical approach was useful in exploring nuanced aspects of inequities such as epistemological hegemony and their links to the under-representation of WAC in STEM rather than solely focusing on individual instances of discrimination and simply charting numerical underrepresentation.
Expected Outcomes
The findings of the study point toward four overarching themes including: Firstly, "the masculinity of science identity" - deconstructing power imbalances within discourses of 'science identity,' highlighting its performative nature. This construct implicitly frames non-conforming bodies/performances as 'outsiders-within’, requiring additional support, surveillance, and (re)socialisation into the science culture. Secondly, "checking the colour box" - unpacking the contradictory positioning of WAC, with their representation often tokenised as diversity markers, while their epistemological contributions are deemed academically short of the perceived ‘standard’. Thirdly, "the partnership and motherhood penalty" - analysing how societal expectations regarding gender roles in partnership/motherhood act as significant barriers for WAC in STEM, exploring the overlap between a woman’s biological clock, her career clock, and her partner’s career clock. Lastly, "Out of place yet unrelated to gender and/or race identity" - exploring various forms of dissonance, with participants associating gendered and racialised experiences with cultural dynamics. This theme references hegemonic meritocratic discourses prevalent in STEM and internalised responses to gendered and racialised experiences, potentially contributing to the underrepresentation of WAC in STEM. These findings extend an invitation to conference participants to lean into the discomfort and engage/contribute to discourses around gendered and racialised barriers, including epistemological hegemonic cultures and practices that serve to perpetuate and/or exacerbate the underrepresentation of WAC in STEM. Informed by the study’s findings, these discussions have the potential to facilitate equitable and cultural changes in policies and practices. This includes implications for a renewed commitment to targeted recruitments, inclusive mentoring, family-friendly policies, cultural intelligence training, and a critical (re)evaluation of existing criteria and perceptions of epistemological competence.
References
Ahmed, S. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Diversity and Inclusion in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM), 2020. Inquiry into Equity in the STEM Workforce. Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G. and Lawless, M. 2019. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perception and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1-8. Arribas-Ayilon, M. & Walkerdine, V., 2017. “Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton-Rogers. London: SAGE, 91–108. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2021. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, I-338 Bhopal K. and Henderson, H. 2021. Competing inequalities: gender versus race in higher education institutions in the UK, Educational Review, 73(2): 153-169. Butler, J., 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1-272. Carlone, H.B. and Johnson, A., 2007. Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8): 1187-1218. Casad BJ, Franks JE, Garasky CE, Kittleman MM, Roesler AC, Hall DY, Petzel ZW. 2021. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. Journal of Neurosciences Research, 99:13–23. Dean, B. A., 2018. The Interpretivist and the Learner. International Journal of doctoral studies, 13: 1-8. Foucault, M., 1988. “Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with Michel Foucault, October 25, 1982.” In Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, edited by Luther H. Martin, Patrick Hall, S., 1996. Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? in S. Hall & P. du Gay (eds.), Questions of Identity. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1-17. Ong, M. Smith, J. M. & Ko, L. T., 2018. ‘Counterspaces for Women of Color in STEM Higher Education: Marginal and Central Spaces for Persistence and Success’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 55(2): 206–245. Said, E. W., 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge, pp. 1-92. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press Subedi, B. & Daza, S. L., 2008. The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education, Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1): 1-10. WISE Campaign. 2019. 2019 workforce statistics – 1 million women in STEM in the UK. Accessed 21 Sept 2021 at: https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/annual-core-stem-stats-round-up-2019-20/
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.