University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Discovering implicit academic science norms through the experience of historically underrepresented STEM faculty

(USC Thesis Other)

Discovering implicit academic science norms through the experience of historically underrepresented STEM faculty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS
THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE OF
HISTORICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED STEM FACULTY

By

Cynthia J. Joseph

Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2018

Copyright 2018 Cynthia J. Joseph

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 2

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 3

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031

This dissertation written by

Under the discretion of h___ Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all members of
the committee, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty of the Rossier
School of Education in partial fulfilment of
the requirements of the degree of

Doctor of Education

Date

Chairperson

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 4

Acknowledgements
I would like to take a pause to thank those who stood by me during this journey of
course work, reading, and writing. My family—my daughter, Mariah, and my husband,
John—have been a rock of unfailing love and support. You made many sacrifices as I sat
at the kitchen table reading and writing (sometimes Mariah and I together); you also have
endured a multitude of lectures on various aspects of this topic, for which I apologize!
I wanted to express gratitude to my chair, Dr. Briana Hinga, who inspired me to
dig deeply and question the epistemology of diversity research. To Dr. Ruth Chung as
my first methods instructor in the program, I thank you for your enthusiasm for
quantitative approaches and for the inspiration to think big. To Dr. John Slaughter I want
to express my warmest regards as you were a mentor in the experience of faculty
members and a guide on paths forward. To Dr. Nicole MacCalla thank you for seeing my
passion and guiding me to operationalize all of my nuanced ideas into a viable study.
The myriads of family and friends who have stood by and listened, encouraged,
and parleyed through this project were almost endless. For you all, I am truly grateful for
the gifts that your presence brings, and the ways our lives enrich each other.
On a final note, I want to thank my peers, the support staff at Rossier, and my
instructors for their guidance and reassurance during this four-year process. And lastly, I
offer a special thank you to the participants who volunteered their time and told me their
story. Without you, this project would not exist. I am grateful!

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4
Figures and Tables 6
Abstract 7
CHAPTER I: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Study 9
Study Purpose 15
Importance of Study 16
Summary 18
CHAPTER II: Review of Literature 19
Race and Racism 19
Stereotypes, Identity and Socialization 23
Bourdieu as Theoretical Frame 36
Study Purpose 40
CHAPTER III: Methodology 41
Overall Study Design 41
Reliability, Validity, and Assumptions 57
Ethical Standards and Approvals 58
CHAPTER IV: Results 60
Phase One: Content Analysis of Current Instruments 60
Phase Two: Case Study Content Analysis 84
Phase Three: Interviews 98
Summary 132
CHAPTER V: Discussion 133
Phase One Findings 133
Phase Two Findings 134
Discussion of Phase Three Findings 134
Emergent Themes 146
Limitations and Future Recommendations 147
Conclusion 151

References 152
Appendix A: Survey—Operationalizing Minority Faculty Experience 177
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 190
Appendix C: Case Study Two—Emergent Themes 193

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 6

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Contextual Framework for the Lived Experience of
Minority Faculty in the US 39
Figure 2: Study Design 43
Table 1: Instrument Review Selection Criteria 44
Table 2: Description of Participants 55
Table 3: Identified Themes 61
Table 4: Faculty Experiences Measured 62
Table 5: Stereotype Instruments 63
Table 6: Learning Environments Measured 64
Table 7: Racial Identity Measured 66
Table 8: Affect Measured 67
Table 9: Racism Measured 68
Table 10: Socialization Measured 69
Table 11: Instrument Analysis Against Selection Criterion 72
Figure 3: Analysis by Population Criterion 74
Figure 4: Types of Research Design Only 76
Figure 5: Analysis of Remaining Characterizations of Design 76
Figure 6: Analysis of Critical Voice Only 77
Figure 7: Research Point of View 77
Figure 8: Analysis of Etic Instruments 78
Figure 9: Analysis of Emic Instruments 79
Table 12: Themes, Instruments and Features 81
Figure 10: Case Study One: Data Trends 85
Table 13: Case Study Two: Emergent Themes and Dimensions 90
Figure 11: Case Study Three: Data Trends 94
Table 14: Preferred Language for Underrepresented Minority 99
Table 15: Survey and Interview Results for Academic Science Norms 109
Table 16: Themes Operationalizing STEM Norms for URM Early Career
Faculty 110
Table 17: Survey and Interview Results for Institutional Recruitment of
URM Faculty 128

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 7

Abstract
This study investigated the experience of early career minority faculty in STEM
fields by identifying unmeasured themes specific to the norms of academic science. As a
mixed-method exploratory, sequential research design (Creswell, 2011), this investigation
was triangulated in three phases. Applying qualitative methods (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008), current fielded instruments to describe minority experience were
identified and described as a priori codes then case studies were coded with identified
and emerging themes. Information from these two phases informed the development of a
survey and an explanatory interview protocol. Findings suggested that faculty experience
racial stereotypes, implicit science norms influence both graduate training and faculty
practice, and minority faculty identity pressure science norms. The final output was the
construct of resistant identity including both a racial and science identity and
characterized by a list of six emergent themes: external commitment, supportive
orientation, cultural openness, political lens, confrontational willingness, and affective
recovery. These findings suggested further exploration of minority STEM faculty
experience to confirm and refine the context of underrepresentation.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 8

Chapter I: Overview of the Study

Many recent reports documented the gap in educational attainment of women and
underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) fields while emphasizing the national, societal, and economic importance of
addressing the problem (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
2009; Baum, Cunningham, & Tanenbaum, 2015; Dowd, A.C. 2008; Fagen, & Olson,
2007; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NAS], 2011, 2015,
2016a, 2016b, 2016c; National Research Council [NRC] 2012, 2015, 2016; National
Science Foundation [NSF], 2008; National Science Board [NSB], 2010; National Center
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2013; Ross, Kena, Rathbun, Kewal, Ramani, Zhang,
Kristapovich, & Manning, 2012).
Underrepresentation in STEM fields was documented across training, career
participation, and faculty employment. In 2010, 36% of all Asian/Pacific Islander
graduates earned a STEM degree, 25% White graduates earned a STEM degree, 23%
American Indian/Alaska Native, 21% Black, and 20% Hispanic. Although HBCUs
represent only 3% of undergraduate institutions, 26% to 31% of all science and
engineering degrees awarded were earned by their graduates (Babco, 2003).
Employment in STEM continues to lag for both women and Blacks, Hispanics, and
American Indian/Alaska Natives. The National Science Board Science and Engineering
Indicators (2016) show that in Science and Engineering occupations overall, only 29% of
employees were women and only 11% were minorities. In 2015, STEM doctoral degree
attainment rates disaggregated by race showed 4.6% Black, 6.6% Hispanic, 12.2% Asian,
0.1% Pacific Islander, 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native and 2.6% multi-racial
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 9

conferrals (NCES, 2017, Table 318.45). The balance of the degrees (73.6%) were earned
by White students. In the same year, 1.6 million individuals were employed as faculty at
degree-granting institutions with 52% employed full-time (NCES 2017-144). Of those
full-time faculty, 77% were White and 10% Asian/Pacific Islander while 6% were Black,
4% were Hispanic, and under 1% each were biracial and American Indian or Alaskan
Natives. Statistics for full professor, the senior rank, show 83% were White, 9%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2% each Black males, Black females, and Hispanic males.
Hispanic females, multiracial, and American Indians and Native Alaskans comprise less
than 1% each.
Research had stressed the importance of faculty to minority student success
(Chen, 2013; Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado & Chang, 2012; Hurtado, Cuellar &
Guillermo-Wann 2011; Hurtado, Alvarado & Guillermo-Wann, 2015; Rendon, 1994;
Seymour & Hewitt, 1997) however, less attention had been paid to understanding what
forces act on the professors. What was the effect of disproportionate representation of
minorities within the rank of faculty on the experience of minority faculty members? Did
the STEM disciplines further influence the minoritized faculty experience? What
practices or norms in STEM disciplines affected that experience? The focus of this
inquiry was to describe the experience of historically underrepresented faculty in the
context of STEM field norms.
Background of the Study

Many perspectives had been used to understand the reasons for
underrepresentation among faculty. Historically, small numbers of minority faculty were
in part related to historical norms and laws based on race enforcing racial segregation.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 10

The landmark court case, Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) which made the
previous legal standard of separate but equal unconstitutional as it denied black children
14
th
amendment equal protection under the law. In a ruling about college admission in
1978, the structural redress of segregation was legally eroded and replaced by the
verbiage of diversity (Delton, 2009). Long (2007) noted that when affirmative action or
legal enforcement of access was weakened, minority enrollment in academic institutions
showed decline, especially at high status institutions which train STEM PhDs
(MacLachlan, 2006). Race also impacts the professorate. Jackson (2008) found hiring
differences between White men and Black men across faculty positions noting that both
accumulation of field-based capital and merit were predictors of White men’s
employment in the academy while they did not predict Black men’s employment.
Widespread interest in STEM underrepresentation has led to many investigations
broadly covering the connections from the training of scientists to their employment as
faculty. Widnall (1988), president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Sciences (AAAS), reported on the leaky pipeline within graduate school that highlighted
the pressures of the experience on women and ways to support them to completion as a
mechanism toward representation in faculty positions. Authors Chubin, Gary & Eleanor
(2005) proposed that if the fields were going to diversify, they need to address issues of
cultural competence or adaptation of content to all members of the population. This
change of emphasis from what was delivered to who was receiving the information might
impact in representation across race in engineering careers. Holly and Garner (2012)
studied leaky pipelines for first-generation students which comprise one-third of doctoral
students recommending changes in practice to support students through discipline,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 11

institution, and financial challenges. Cannady, Greenwald, and Harris (2013) argued for
the broadening of the term pipeline to pathway to include the variance of trajectories
within STEM degrees and careers. McGee (2016) challenged the practice within the
STEM pipeline by mentoring talented graduate students into the needed knowledge,
skills, and behaviors needed to survive to degree.
Faculty racial underrepresentation has been studied across disciplines while
considering issues spanning many socio-cultural factors. Chilly climate and
microaggressions within the academic institutions negatively impacted faculty
productivity and retention as they had to spend time fighting the system and working to
disprove it (Frazier, 2011, Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998). Research has shown that faculty of
color felt that their research domains were undervalued by the university (Sue, et al.,
2011). Faculty of color also felt the need to succeed above their peers (Turner, Myers &
Creswell, 1999). Mentorship of junior faculty was found to be limited but open
communication across inclusive environments supported the sharing of information and
policies (Girves, Zepeda, & Gwathmey, 2005). In the classroom, historically
underrepresented faculty faced common microaggressions and microinvalidations or
microinsults about their teaching or place in the classroom (Pittman, 2012; Sue, et al.,
2007). Turner and colleagues (1999) found tenured faculty of color reported isolation,
perceived lack of support, no mentoring, or information and even direct judgment about
not matching the look of a tenured professor. The findings from this study demonstrate
that perceived racial and ethnic bias were fundamental to the tenured faculty’s experience
of unwelcoming environments.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 12

As institutions practiced change, researchers found different results. Minority
faculty noted the pressure to participate in diversity efforts by their institutions had both
internal and external demand and frequently resulted in overcommitment (Mahoney, et
al., 2008). In addition, academic leaders placed minorities as both the leaders of diversity
efforts and the subject of them, while White faculty were not seen as valid in the
discussion thus marginalizing the topic of race and racism (McKinley Jones Brayboy,
2003). In contrast, authors Spafford, Nygaard, Gregor & Boyd's (2006) investigation of
found that minoritized faculty were integrated into institutions by implementing across-
the-academy practices of acceptance of difference through hiring, promotion and tenure,
participation across formal and informal interactions, experiences of support, and access
to mentoring.
Minority Faculty Experience and STEM

Informed by the work of minoritized faculty experiences, this study proposed the
question the influence of a domain on minority faculty experience. Literature on
minority faculty experience in STEM fields was scarce yet academic disciplines were
found to be strongly normative (Ylijoki, 2000) underscoring the importance of
contextualizing the experience of historically underrepresented faculty within their
domains. STEM includes broad disciplinary differences, but throughout the literature
researchers had grouped those disciplines together based on common characteristics.
According to Dowd (2008), knowledge, in the hard or pure sciences, was seen as
objective and neutral without being value-laden. Success in the hard sciences meant
persisting through failures and rewards with small successes as new knowledge w built
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 13

through small increments of experimental testing. Therefore, the culture of science was a
culture of survivors.
Understanding faculty perspective on their previous graduate school training
began to deconstruct the intersections of race and STEM. Findings from a 10-year study
of 33 African American STEM students revealed insufficient training for the professorate
even though 20 of the individuals hold faculty positions (MacLachlan, 2006). Those in
faculty positions searched to find a “reasonable fit” (p. 10) that required changing jobs.
These participants described the “tension between being a graduate student and being an
African American graduate student” (p. 7) even though they managed to develop good or
fair relationships with their advisor and connections with peers. But for those with
stressful graduate school experiences, the distress from that struggle was still apparent
into their employment as faculty. In sum, the challenge of graduate work was had been
compounded by race and impacted them into the professorate. Griffin, Gibbs, Bennett,
Staples and Robinson (2015) investigated STEM experiences including post-doctoral
participants in biomedical fields and described barriers, harassment, racial judgements,
and inappropriate behavior from lead faculty. They recommended that structural changes
and “further, explicit consideration and discussion of what it [meant] to be a ‘scientists,’
in formal and informal settings, [to] make previously held assumptions more clear, and
perhaps be challenged in more productive ways” (Griffin, Gibbs, Bennett, Staples &
Robison, 2015, p. 174).
Racism and discrimination were also described by academic medical faculty who
feel a constant attach on their value, ability, and contribution within the academy
(Rodriguez, Campbell, & Poloi, 2015). Medical faculty also noted the racial fatigue that
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 14

resulted from experiencing discrimination and deciding whether to risk challenging it or
to preserve their professional careers (Mahoney, Wilson, Odom, Flower, & Adler, 2008).
Blackwell, Snyder, and Mavriplis (2009) conducted a climate investigation
sampling faculty at a large, public university to understand group differences between
women in STEM and non-STEM and racial/ethnic minorities in STEM and non-STEM.
Findings showed that women in STEM and non-STEM racial/ethnic minorities generally
had more negative experiences than STEM racial/ethnic minorities experienced. It was
possible that differences in minority experience could have been due to the difference in
races/ethnicities represented. While STEM minorities were primarily Asian and Pacific
Islander, non-STEM minorities were mostly African American and Hispanic, Latino/a
and Mexican American. Researchers tested this finding by splitting the sample into
White, Asian/Pacific American, and non-Asian minorities and found that Asian/Pacific
American had the highest positive climate perceptions and the lowest turnover intentions.
Rios and Stewart (2015) conducted 41 interviews of randomly selected
STEM faculty in a large, public university to investigate their experience. Standpoint
theory was applied which suggested that majority viewpoints were validated more than
minority viewpoints within a culture. Researchers identified eight themes in three
categories: common institutional standpoint, insider standpoint, and outsider-within
standpoint. While all faculty agreed with the common theme of excellence, White men
were more likely to reflect an insider perspective while women of color displayed an
outsider-within frame. The insider standpoint included two themes: a friendly and
supportive environment and social identity was not important. The outsider-within
standpoint included five themes: race or cultural privilege, heightened responsibility,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 15

sense of isolation, self-censoring, and convenient diversity. Findings also supported that
social identity was important for URM (African American/Black, Latino/a, Native
American) faculty while Asian American and White faculty tended to express low
importance. However, Asian and URM faculty expressed outsider-within perspectives on
heightened responsibility and race or color privilege. URM faculty more frequently
noted convenient diversity as a concern. In all, the findings suggested a difference in
perspective across the race and ethnicity within the STEM faculty experience and the
standpoint of cultural inside and outside within the discipline.
The minimal discipline-specific research to contextualizes faculty
underrepresentation in STEM represented an opportunity to investigate the specific
relationship of race and STEM once the participant has shifted from a learner to
investigator and professor. Reviewed literature describing experiences of faculty of color
across collected academic disciplines suggested that further investigation could map the
racialized experience.
Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of early career minority
faculty in academic science fields. This research was conducted within Bourdieu’s
(1990, 1996, 1999) relational frame of field, capital, and habitus to connect the individual
responses to the larger picture of the system. In brief, fields were a "configuration of
relationships" (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 6) that shape the kinds of capital that were
valued within the relationship. Bourdieu’s theory of habitus describes the external
system of culture that cultivates the individual who then becomes the reinforcer of that
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 16

same system. Critical theories were used to amplify the minoritized faculty description
of their experience. Three research questions guided the inquiry:
1. What themes of minority experience in academic science had been
operationalized in fielded instruments?
2. What themes were confirmed and what new themes emerged in case studies
related to minority faculty experience or STEM faculty experience?
3. To what extent were new emergent themes confirmed in interviews with
minority STEM faculty?
Importance of Study

Direct investigation into the domain of STEM fields was significant to understand
the experience of racialized faculty within those fields. As most of the research focus had
emphasized the representation of minorities within STEM education, training, and
employment, this study contextualized the arguments of representation across STEM
fields within critical theories and with a faculty focus. Metcalf (2010) deconstructed the
focus on STEM pipeline issues of access, recruitment, and retention arguing, in part, that
this linear approach can washout the variance across career path and oversimplify the
complexity of lived experience.
Other researchers had applied critical theory and anti-racist critiques to describe
the biases embedded in the fields of institutions. Noting Hurtado and colleagues’ (1999)
campus racial climate framework, Fries-Britt and colleagues (2011) studied the impacts
of affirmative action and diversity for faculty of color in primarily White institutions.
Findings indicated the complexity of equity and diversity practice and the tendency of
universities to preserve the status quo rather than seek to transform the academic
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 17

landscape. Aguirre (2000) found that both women and minorities in academia were
working to support the diversity goals of institutions by serving on committees and
participating in faculty recruitment, yet this activity was not valued in the tenure process.
McKinley, Jones, Brayboy (2003) continued noting that university service work enabled
universities to boast of progress on diversity issues yet leave color-blind practices that
support the status quo of racial inequality in place. Racial barriers to success within the
academy persisted across “the social fabric” of the department, institution, and national
contexts (Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008, p. 158). Female faculty of color dealt with
the effects of the margins—greater stress, more stereotyping, higher visibility, exclusions
from networks, choosing invisibility to minimize standing out, and fewer resources
(Turner, 2002). The racial stereotypes of intelligence, productivity, and cultural impeded
the growth and retention of faculty of color (Mountz, et al., 2015). In sum, faculty
experience was racialized.
Definitions of Key Terms

This study described the experience of historically underrepresented faculty in
STEM fields. For this study, underrepresented was defined as historically
underrepresented minorities (self-identified as one or more) including Alaska Natives,
Native or Native Americans, Blacks or African Americans, Latino/as, Native Hawaiians
and other Pacific Islanders (NSF, 2008). STEM faculty had earned a Ph.D.in one of the
following fields: computer and mathematical sciences; biological, agricultural, and
environmental life sciences; physical (physicists, chemists, geoscientists, etc.) sciences;
engineers; and biomedical domains (NSB, 2015).
Delimitations
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 18

This investigation was an initial exploration of these themes. The task of
describing the experience of faculty from multiple racial and ethnic backgrounds over
scores of individual disciplines was far beyond the scope of this study. Rather this study
was designed to be an exploratory, sequential interrogation of the themes of race within
the field of academic science guided by the voices of individuals having the experience.
The findings were limited by the method and small sample size.
Summary

Faculty and academic culture was the subject of much research in the 1970s and
into the 1980s but had not recently been explored in relationship to what student
development theory had uncovered. Research in student persistence to degree had
revealed the importance of the professor as key to student success as an agent of the
institution in the diverse learning environment (Chen, 2013; Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia,
Hurtado, & Chang, 2012; Hurtado, Cuellar, & Guillermo-Wann 2011; Hurtado,
Alvarado, & Guillermo-Wann, 2015; Rendon, 1994; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The
purpose of this study was to return to the focus on faculty and to amplify the voice of
historically underrepresented faculty within academic science fields.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 19

CHAPTER II: Review of Literature

The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of minority faculty in
academic science fields. To contextualize their experience, this review of literature
began by reviewing race and racism. Race was described as a meaning-making construct
that defines relationships (Kaschak, 2015). That meaning was not just individually held,
but also systemically reinforced through racism (DiAngelo, 2011; Harper, 2012).
Stereotypes were the explicit statements of that meaning that define beliefs about groups,
(Hilton & von Hippel, 1996) and identity was the creation of meaning negotiated by the
individual in conjunction with society’s structures (Stryker, [1980] 2002; Serpe &
Stryker, 2011). Becoming part of a group or community required incorporating the group
norms, values, and beliefs (Austin, 2002). The socialization across meanings of race and
narratives of group and individual identity was proposed to require the integration into
the group (Gopaul, 2011). If integration was required, what aspects of meaning-making
were possible tensions between racial meaning and academic science membership? The
application of a Bourdieu’s (1990, 1996, 1999) theories of practice framed race and
academic science through aspects of field, capital, habitus, and power. Specifically, this
theory emphasized the relationships between these elements and the role of habitus to
repeat historical norms in present practice.
Race and Racism

For the purpose of describing faculty experience, this study defined
underrepresented STEM faculty as historically underrepresented minorities. This
definition referenced historically and culturally constructed categories. Alcoff (2006)
argued across multiple domains that race was expressed as a visible identity. In the late
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 20

1800s color became the primary sign of race, influenced by medicine’s inability to
differentiate races through internal anatomy (Tucker, 2012). Peggy McIntosh, (1988) at
the fore-front of critical discussions of whiteness, stated that skin color privilege or White
privilege was a license to dominate or control not through earned strength but
systematically conferred power. “Whiteness [was] not an identity, but a historical
category that damages all who come into contact with it” (Kaschak, 2015, p. 191). Most
importantly, race was not just a matter of construction, rather it acted as a definer of
relationship and who one was in that relationship. Unconscious, visual patterns learned
before language became “the very organizing principles of vision” and meaning-making
(Kaschak, 2015, p. 186).
Racism Defined

Research has documented that minoritized faculty experience judgment based on
race (Frazier, 2011; Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Sue, et. al, 2007; Turner, et al., 1999).
These perceptions evidenced racism which had held two different meanings: the first that
racism was a natural psychological orientation based on in-group/out-group phenomena,
and the second that racism was an expression of power linked to structures of acquisition
and disposal across local and transnational contexts (Mullings, 2005). As a general
consensus among anthropologists studying race, the modern idea of racism emerged in
the context of European expansion, and most historians acknowledge that racism was
bound up in the emergence of nations and wrapped in previous and resulting conflict. In
the United States, the history of slavery served as an economic foundation for the
colonies and their parent countries and built a system of power onto the racist excuse of
biological and religious superiority (Mullings, 2005).
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 21

Strategies to mask the importance of racialized histories were used to minimize
the acknowledgement of racism. In the US, color blindness has become an insulator
describing the end of 500-plus years of racialized systems that distributed wealth and
personhood based on a short six-year period of affirmative access, federal enforcement of
anti-discrimination laws, and now diversity initiatives (Custred, 1995). This mythology
of the creating of an equitable society explained racial inequality as a result of non-
racialized actions (Bonilla-Silva, 2002).
By focusing racism on only the individual, controlling the definitions of race in
our systems, and supporting Whiteness as the norm, the system of economic, political,
and religious power was rendered invisible (Lee, 1993; Stam & Shohat, 2012; Valdeón,
2013). Inclusive definitions of racism addressed the historical perspective and the
modern norms of the US encompass both the
individual actions (both intentional and unconscious) that engender
marginalization and inflict varying degrees of harm on minoritized persons;
structures that determine and cyclically remanufacture racial inequity; and
institutional norms that sustain White privilege and permit the ongoing
subordination of minoritized persons (Harper, 2012, p. 10).
For DiAngelo (2011) racism was defined as “encompassing economic, political, social,
and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal
distribution of privileges, resources, and power between white people and people of
color” (p. 56). Both Harper & DiAngelo proposed a narrative beyond a psychological
judgement of in and out groups. Rather they acknowledged the constructed dominance of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 22

one color or people, White, over others, Black or other, that was supported by a system
distributing privilege through practice and policy. Racism enforced racial meanings.
Racism in Education

Racism and race, as meaning-making constructs, entered academic institutions.
Within education, meritocracy became the guiding belief that those who get to the top
were merited—that the best rise to the top from any level of opportunity (Stam & Shohat,
2012). This idea came from the attribution of success only to individualistic effort
without acknowledging that any form of external support or availability of resources used
to reach individual goals. In her work on race and citizenship, Ladson-Billings (2012)
found that Black students were seen as poorer citizens than their counterpart-White
students. In the analysis of the McNair participants, Bancroft (2016) identified the
importance of systemic level interventions for Cubans that while Latino/a students were
limited to individual efforts or impacts. The systems of power within the US continue to
uphold racism (Harper, 2012, Fitzgerald, 2015) by re-segregation of location and
education through economic means.
Swartz (2009) described the gatekeeping power or this dominant racial narrative
within the educational structure. Specifically, Swartz noted the shift from affirmative
action to diversity was based on “a compelling state interest” (p. 1054) to broaden the
intellectual exchange of ideas, not crafted as a response to laws that denied entrance into
economic, political, and social institutions. Diversity, then, allowed for the integration of
those capable of hurdling the system barriers left in place while “[w]hiteness can remain
ensconced at the top of the identity hierarchy, and all other groups ‘take their place’ in
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 23

descending categorical and intra-categorical order” (p. 1056). In effect, whiteness
retained its power to define.
Stereotypes, Identity, and Socialization

Race defined persons and relationships to academic fields within US culture. The
meaning of those definitions operationalized into lived experience through the explicit
messages of stereotypes. Within this dominant racial narrative, researchers sought to
understand how individuals made meaning resulting in theories of stereotype threat,
identity formation, and socialization into normalized understanding and behavior. The
following sections introduced key aspects of these theories.
Race-based Stereotypes

Psychological research defined stereotypes as beliefs about groups possessing
certain characteristics, attributes and behaviors as well as theories about why those
characteristics go together for that specific group (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Devine
(1989) defined stereotypes as conceptually different from personal beliefs which were
individually endorsed and accepted as true. Her research of prejudice, an endorsed
stereotype, showed that individuals were aware of stereotypes whether they believe them
or not, and stereotype activation was automatic to explain ambiguous behavior (Devine,
1989). Low prejudiced individuals were able to interrupt stereotypes. Greenwald,
McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) showed persistent racial bias even when individuals mask
undesirable evaluative associations. Racial stereotypes persisted in meaning-making.
Specific to academia, McGee (2016) identified several racial stereotypes for
Black students: affirmative action admission, inferior academic abilities, not appropriate
for intellectually challenging disciplines, criminality, and pathologizing cultural values
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 24

(McGee, 2016). Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer and Freeland (2015) found evidence that race
was a predictor of field diversity. Ng and Pak (2007) contested the stereotypes of model
minority and perpetual foreigner for students of Asian descent. Native Americans were
regarded as inferior and the Mexican student’s style of home was tied to the Native
American Indian as backward (Valencia, Menchaca, & Donato, 2002). Stereotypes that
connected the individual to the imposed group meaning implicated academic potential.
Stereotype Threat
Authors Steele and Aronson (1995) studied the effects of stereotypes on
individuals who were categorized by them. Stereotype threat was defined as a “social-
psychological predicament that can arise from widely-known negative stereotypes about
one’s group” (Steele & Aronson, 1995, p. 797). Looking at race, test performance and
the threat of Black participants confirming the stereotype of intellectual inferiority, the
authors designed a study to test the effects of stereotype threat. Comparing White and
Black participants, the first three tests were designed to activate stereotype threat through
measures of intellectual ability. Results of study four showed that even in a non-ability
context, the priming of racial identity before the test significantly depressed scores.
Stereotype threat required no belief of validity by the individual and was
reinforced by perpetuating the cultural norms. When individuals made it into a domain
that did not fit the dominant racial narrative, they were identified as exceptional so that
the domain remains unattainable. Thus the racial meaning-made remained stable.
McGee (2016) interviewed Black and Latino/a students and found that students
who persisted in their studies knew that they were being stereotyped and used strategies
to minimize their impact. Nguyen and Ryan (2008) completed a meta-analysis of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 25

research on stereotype threat’s effect on minorities and women that revealed subtle
priming (reminding individuals of their identity) demonstrated stronger affects than more
blatant actions. Researchers had employed the subtle priming techniques when testing
the relationship between identity and stereotype threat in various contexts.
Researchers investigated specific aspects of academic science stereotypes
revealing meaning made regarding the domain. Master and Meltzoff (2016) found that
STEM fields were typified by isolated and socially awkward males with genius abilities.
Authors Deemer, Thoman, Chase, and Smith (2014) found that stereotype threat’s effect
varied on major: significant negative indirect effect on women majoring in physics but
not in chemistry. While both of these studies examined the effect of gender, the
stereotypes of genius and math ability directly map onto racial stereotypes of inferior
intellectual capacity.
In fact, Steele (1997) rooted stereotype threat in the theory domain identification
which proposed that success in education requires identification with the institution and
its subdomains. When the identification with the process of being educated and an
individual’s place in an educational system or discipline was challenged by societal
norms or stereotypes, the success of the student was interrupted.
Race-based meaning related to collective stereotypes within a domain. Crocker
and Quinn (2004) stated “research on the experience of the stigmatized should not only
document the collective representations that the stigmatized and non-stigmatized bring
with them to situations, but should also explore how those collective representations
affect the meaning of situations for the stigmatized and non-stigmatized” (p. 137-8). The
authors continue noting “there [was] a loop from collective representations to meanings
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 26

of situations back to collective representations” (p. 138). The identification of the
collective representation to the individual for the purpose of making meaning connects
stereotypes to the theory of identity.
Theories of Identity

Broadly, theories of identity connected societies' labels with expectations that
define behaviors and were internalized by individuals as a part of the self (Burke, 2004).
Many different theories of identity seek to characterize this process. Identity theory was
rooted in sociology through the symbolic interactionist’s frame where the society was
viewed as a whole, and the individual assumes the role of the other as a basis for
individual role-related behaviors (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Two theorists, Herbert
Blumer and Manford H. Kuhn, shaped the understanding of identity through symbolic
interaction (Stryker, [1980] 2002; Serpe & Stryker, 2011). For Blumer, the social
creation of meaning was continuously negotiated while Kuhn recognized that society’s
structures, once formed, limited the individuals’ construction and the resulting networks
of roles and guided behavior. Identity formation was a link between the self and social
structures.
Three theoretical perspectives lead the discussion of identity. Identity theory
proposed that an individual’s roles were the basis of their identity which was “a
conception of self as comprised of multiple identities tied to interaction in organized
networks of social relationships” (Stryker, Serpe & Hunt, 2005, p. 93-94). To
understand choices made by agents in social relationships, identity salience (individual’s
readiness to act out a cognitive schema conceptualizing an identity) was a function of
commitment (strength of responsibility to others tied to role in a network) (Stryker et. al.,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 27

2005). Social identity theories (SIT) proposed that an identity to which individuals might
feel they belong, created a self-definition and became part of the self-concept or a social
identity (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). SIT identified a behavioral continuum between
individual identity and social identity (Worchel & Countant, 2004). Thus, social identity
was distinguished from the rest of the self-concept but not from personal identity. (Turner
& Reynolds, 2004). Self-categorization theory (SAT) differs from SIT as it seeks to
explain how people became a group and the psychological basis of that group process
through category creation (Turner & Reynolds, 2004). The process of applying
stereotypes to others and the depersonalization of the self, because the category becomes
self-defining so that “social identity was the perception of self in terms of stereotypical
in-group attributes” (Brewer & Hogg, 2004, 155). Groups were, therefore,
depersonalized (stereotypes, prejudices, etc.) and prototypes replace individuals, so they
were only vaguely defined categories (Hogg et al., 1997). Self-categorization theory
suggested a hierarchical process model meaning determines what category was applied in
each situation.
Race and Identity Development

To begin by contextualize identity in race, understanding identity through a
developmental and/or psychological lens produced important theories of gender, racial,
and ethnic identity (Gillian, 1977, Tierney, 1992; Helms, 1993; Phinney, 1993; Cross,
1995; Ferdman & Gallegos, 2001; Kim, 2001; Horse, 2001; Renn 2004). Responding to
the increase of women and minorities and the complexity of college experience, Tanaka
(2002) noted the growing evidence through empirical research that contemporary
students’ development was not explained through current identity formation and
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 28

development theories (Astin, 1994; Marcia, 1980; Phinney, 1993; Tinto, 1975, 1987).
Instead, Tanaka proposed a critical review of development based on post-structural and
postmodern theories, feminist critique, critical race theory, queer theory,
multiculturalism, and postcolonial or transnational anthropology. Five probes—voice,
power, authenticity, self-reflexivity, and reconstitution—served as mechanisms to
reframe institutions as polycultural and to guide researchers forward in work assessing
student development and learning outcomes.
Race as Meaning and Identity

Critical race theory rests on the social construction of race through cultural,
social, and historical systems and its subsequent influence on individuals (Cho, 2015;
Ladson-Billings, 2012). Race acted as a definer of relationships within systems which
adds the complexity seen through lived experience. Crenshaw (1991) drew a clear
picture of intersections of identity within lived reality while criticizing the essentialism of
feminism and postmodernist social construction of race. Crenshaw asserted identities
were not singular; race was not artificial. Their power was socially exercised through
categorizing subordinated peoples. The construction of an identity was not separated
from the social, economic, and political systems that support it spanning structural,
political, and representational arguments. However, the act of claiming a social identity
as a self-identity was a positive discourse of resistance.
As a theory, intersectional identity presented many challenges. First, the
intersection of multiple socially constructed identities placed individuals in
advantage/disadvantage intersections. Some theorists argued for the expansion of the
theory to investigate these intersections through the voice of Black women (Nash, 2008)
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 29

while others argued against the singularity of that voice (Alexander-Floyd, 2012).
Theorists had also proposed frameworks for expanding research methods (McCall, 2005;
Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016) while others proposed the complexity to be beyond the scope
of quantitative methods (Alexander-Floyd, 2012).
The richness of lived experiences interjected into theories of identity and critical
analysis drove new analysis. Anthias (2012) advocated for positioning race, gender,
class, and ethnicity in social ontologies where relationships were sorted, placed, and
mapped, analyzing social categories through context, meaning, and variability to define
boundaries, and understanding categorization of social groups differed from social
categories which were concrete outcomes of systems of power. Therefore,
intersectionality was not just an intersection of immediate details, but a space within
specific places and times where a process of relationships unfolded. Locating analysis
within the process and the space attended to the intersectionality of the social categories.
Attending to the social arenas extended intersectional investigation into social policies.
Race as a meaning-making construct that was intended to define relationships
mapped onto intersections of space and time. In short, a study of inclusion, or
representation, was not equivalent to an analysis of exclusion, or structural barriers, as
inclusivity gives no consideration to the space of relations previously constructed by
singular governance, religious authority, and economic gain. Intersectionality provides a
model, though varied, to describe the identity complexity of the lived experience of
faculty of color within academic science.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 30

Academic Science Defining Science Identity

Membership in the community of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics as faculty required years of training. Schein (2006) noted that power of
occupational cultures that require extended period of learning or apprenticeship. Full
admittance into these networks seemed to require sharing attitudes, norms, and values
that become embedded in practice. Those assumptions, then, were reinforced at
professional meetings or conferences, team collaboration, and especially through peer-
group evaluation. This definition described scientific training—with a long and
prescribed mentorship period, meetings, conferences, professional organizations, and
peer reviewed grant applications and publications.
Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) investigated race and science identity in successful
women of color proposing a model of meaning making that bridged individuals and
societal structures. This longitudinal study of 23 participants tested their model of
identity (competence, performance, and recognition) to understand how minority women
negotiate and make meaning of their science experiences, develop, and sustain their
science identity, and how that their racial and science identities relate. The author’s
findings described three trajectories for science identity: research scientist (traditional
career as a researcher; traditional definition of scientist; recognition from scientific
community), altruistic scientist (health practitioners; redefined scientist to tie to giving
back; recognition from similar peers or recipients) and disrupted scientists (dissatisfied
but not derailed; individual definition of scientists; sought recognition but was disrupted).
Additionally, results showed that participants whose ethnicity or race were most different
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 31

from the norm in science (Black, Native American, and Latino) were most likely to end
up disrupted.
Explicit Science Norms. Several researchers had noted specific scientific norms.

Merton (1942) listed the norms of science as communalism, universalism,
disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. Parsons (1951) added four norms of the
institutionalization of science (content focus): empirical validity, logical clarity, logical
consistency, and generalizability. He added the only canon of the scientific collective
was the commitment to scientific procedure and acceptance of those beliefs was
obligatory. Holt (1998) listed intellectual brilliance, research competence, detailed
expertise as norms of scientist (Holt, 1998). For Bourdieu (1999) scientists were a new
elite based in merit and natural gifts as opposed to an aristocracy citing patronage and
clientele. And Steckler et al., 1992) noted that methodology of science was pre-
dispositioned to quantitative paradigms over qualitative exploration. The norms of
academic science field both characterized the science and the scientist. Reicher (2004) in
examining group dynamics stated, “norms [were] effective to the extent they [were] seen
as a property of the group rather than a position taken by particular individuals within the
group” (p. 242). As implied, group norms must then be communicated through
socialization to new members who become part of the group that determines and upholds
the norms.
Implicit Academic Norms. According to Parsons (1951), the university was the
“principal institutionalized frame” organizing the investigation of the natural world and
the “primary culture bearers in the value-system of society generally through the
education of its primary elite elements” (p. 342). Parsons acknowledged the interplay of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 32

cultural narratives (norms, priorities, histories) and individual talent as directional in
knowledge development. The function of science in culture was not just a “simple
function of the supply of biologically gifted individuals, but depends on the job there was
for them to do….This [was] authentically a cultural factor” (Parsons, 1951, p. 337).
Implicit in these remarks were the norms that: universities perpetuated culture; elite
individuals received culture; biological gifts defined elite status; and culture defined
topics of study.
Of interest, Bourdieu (1996) described the university as the having control of "the
instruments of production" (p. 270). As an evidence of the power of definition,
institutional ranking included what historically gives power to elite, dominant institutions
(Craig & Lombardi, 2013). The nine measures were defined for comparison: total
annual sum of federal research dollars spent; total annual sum of all research dollars spent
(federal, corporate, state, foundation, private, institutional, and other); total institutional
endowment and annual fundraising both as an indicator of capacity; total number of
faculty at the institution receiving awards added to the total number of faculty elected to
the National Academy; number of postdoctoral appointees as an indicator of the science
research funded, and finally, the number of doctoral degrees awarded annually, and the
median SAT for undergraduate incoming Freshman class. Clearly, economic power was
highly valued as it was factored in six of the nine criteria. However, money was
important to hire highly productive faculty, fund more research, and graduate more
researchers. Productive faculty in all disciplines were recognized by receiving grants,
hiring postdoctoral researchers, graduating doctoral students, accumulating research
awards, and attaining election to the academy. Implicit norms within this description
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 33

included: academic power was linked to economic power; faculty production was key to
university status; and faculty production required field approval.
For this analysis, these norms of the university seemed to frame potential
experiences of historically underrepresented faculty stepping into this role of training the
elite in academic institutions and perpetuating a cultural system presumed to be superior
(Parsons, 1951). Were individuals socialized for such a role? Did that socialization
result in a science identity? What did science identity mean?
Socialization

Austin (2002) summarized work on the role of doctoral education in the
preparation of graduate students. Key to this discussion, Austin defines socialization as
“a process through which an individual becomes part of a group, organization, or
community” (p. 96). As part of this process, students processed values, roles, attitudes,
and expectations through a four-fold task: intellectual mastery of content, personal desire
to participate, knowledge of the academic profession, and integration into the department.
Race and ethnicity were NOT used in the analysis as the sample was too small. Also, the
disciplines included multiple departments in the humanities, natural sciences, and social
sciences.
Austin (2002) found that students’ development as a future faculty member was
impacted by age, educational background, family situation, and previous employment.
The context of the discipline and the institution also played a critical role. Socialization
encompassed norms, values and beliefs, the affective and cognitive dimensions of
learning, and tended to take place through interactions with faculty members (Austin,
2002). The faculty interaction was characterized by apprenticeship-style learning. Of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 34

concern, Austin noted that there was no standardized guide for faculty to follow, the
feedback and mentoring from faculty was limited and as learners, graduate students had
little opportunity to reflect on the process.
Weidman, Twale and Stein (2001) identified four stages of the socialization
process that occurred in graduate school—anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal—
and three core elements—knowledge acquisition, investment, and involvement. They
continued, “[t]he core socialization experience resides in the graduate program under the
academic control of faculty within the institutional culture” (p. 643). An individual’s
acceptance and action of internalized norms were an outcome of the socialization process
(Stein & Weidman, 2003). This socialization seemed be an internalization of a science
identity.
Gopaul (2011) also studied graduate socialization and found the final stage of
internalization (Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001) indicated an integration of the informal
rules of the domain into a professional identity which graduate students then integrated
into their sense of self. This contrasts with other theorists such as Antony (2002) who
suggested that awareness of a discipline without personal identification with it also
described socialization.
Race and Socialization. If graduate socialization demands an internalization of
informal rules of the discipline as acquisition of a science identity, did racialized
identities experience socialization differently? Minority doctoral students built networks
outside their peers and doctoral advisor (Sweitzer, 2009). Bancroft (2013) used critical
tools to deconstruct her minority doctoral experiences in the sciences and reconstruct
support. Griffin, Gibbs, Bennett, Staples and Robinson (2015) found conflicts between
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 35

science identity and racial identity existed past earning a doctoral degree. Ong (2005)
documented that voices of race-defined identities were countering accepted and invisible
norms of neutrality and rebuffed by a “cultureless culture” (p. 598).
Science identity and racial identity issues seemed to persist into the professorate
(Thomas, Johnson-Bailey, Phelps, Tran, & Johnson, 2013). Five Black female faculty in
their mid-career expressed the need to conform and assimilate by reframing their social
identity. They also described the cultures of their disciplines as resistant to their
contributions and topics of study. Authors categorized the described experience as either
a pet (token, invisible, nurtured/overprotected, conforming/assimilating, or mistreated) or
as a threat to the status quo subject to microaggressions. These experiences documented
the possibility of the pressures of racial meaning-making to impact science identity well
past graduate training.
Based on these findings, the experience of minorities in the sciences demanded a
deeper dive into faculty experience to understand the impact of race, racism, and
stereotypes on issues of identity and professional socialization. When race was seen
through the power of relationship and racism the systematic reinforcement of that
definition, stereotypes became the explicit statement of racialized meaning-making.
Individuals’ identity was the creation of meaning from the relationship between persons
and systems. The lived experiences of minoritized identities challenged traditional
theories to intersectional models which recognize complexity across multiple identities.
The norms of the academy and STEM raised questions of scientific identity and
socialization. For historically underrepresented STEM faculty, socialization research
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 36

documented different processes of science identity internalization and the potential of
unresolved identity issues past training stages into the professorate.
Bourdieu as Theoretical Frame

The complexity of race, stereotypes identity, and socialization were clarified
through Bourdieu’s (1990, 1996, 1999) theory of field, capital, and habitus by providing
a relational structure. Systemic power influenced fields and capital while connecting to
the actions of individuals.
Field

In Bourdieu's definition of field, the action and the field were inter-related. Fields
were a "configuration of relationships" (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 6). Bourdieu
(1999) defined field as “a separate social universe having its own laws of functioning,
independent of those politics and the economy" (Bourdieu, 1999, p. 162). In fact, there
was no existence of the actor separate from the field. As Emirbayer & Johnson (2008)
stated, “Singular things act, but they act together” (p. 5).
A field focus also stressed the presence and effects of conflict through considering
the dominant and dominated in relationship. Bourdieu’s field of power was the space
where those holding the greatest accumulation of various capitals were positioned against
each other to form the “ruling class” within that field (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p.
13). Those in power justified their existence and ensured their evaluation of value—the
specific forms of capital that were forms of power—remained the foundation of
legitimate recognition (Bourdieu, 1996, p.265). The dominant fought for conservation
while the dominated attempted subversion.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 37

Capital

Authors (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008) emphasized that capital was not separate
from the field but the kinds of capital that were valued depend on the structure of the
field(s) where it was used. This relational nature was the essence of capital as it was
formed, reproduced, and maintained through the field. Cultural capital was different
from other forms of capital because its form and mode of functioning vary. It was
possible for one to “embody” cultural capital as a result of early family settings or
history. Embodied forms of capital were particularly significant in their power to
reproduce the social world that graced them with the capital and power to start.
Habitus

The replication of the field and capital was transmitted through habitus.

Bourdieu’s theory of habitus described the external system of culture that cultivated the
individual who then became the reinforcer of that same system. Specifically, Bourdieu
stated,
habitus, the durably installed generative principle of regulated improvisation,

which tend to reproduce the regularities immanent in the objective conditions of
the production of their generative principle, while adjusting to the demands
inscribed as objective potentialities in the situation, as defined by the cognitive
and motivating structures making up the habitus. (Bourdieu, 1999, p. 78
underlining for effect).
Habitus was both the action and the reason that the action took place. Bourdieu talked of
the homogeneity of habitus (1999). On one hand habitus was harmonization of
experience while on the other it was continuous reinforcement. Practices were
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 38

intelligible, foreseen, and taken for granted resulting in automatic and impersonal action
corresponding to automatic and impersonal understanding.
Bourdieu and URM Faculty Experience

The focus of this research was on the individual professor who was situated in the
academic science fields. The meaning of race was defined within the field of power.
Power was a field, and academic field participated in the field of power. Habitus was the
social process that led to enduring patterns in this field and integrated underlying racial
meaning-making. Habitus produced ontological complicity, an unconscious knowing of
race, and though it has been culturally constructed, race was effortlessly integrated and
identified by color. Therefore, when an actor had learned racial constructions by sight,
the transfer of patterns was no longer seen yet understood by the dominant actors, and
over-seen by those who were dominated.
Since academic science fields operated within the field of power, the implicit
norms or underlying assumptions of those fields were “durably installed” (Bourdieu,
1999) not only into the structure of the field but also in the individual’s ontology. He
stated, what was defined as rules were “the relation between habitus, as a socially
constituted system of cognitive and motivating structures, and the socially structured
situation in which the agents’ interests [were] defined, and with them the objective
functions and subjective motivations of their practices” (p. 76). From this description,
rules were just a secondary principle of the determination of practices” (p. 76).
In an organization, the understanding of one’s place in the organization was key
to adjusting overall behavior and point of view. The structures of the power in the
organization determined the forms of capital and habitus within that organization. This
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 39

Figure 1 Contextual framework for the Lived Experience of Minority Faculty in the US

Dominant Racial Narrative

was called “specific” habitus while the early experiences form “primary” habitus
(Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008). Within the field, the behaviors of the individual and the
organizational phenomena formed a “mutually constitutive relationship” (Emirbayer &
Johnson, 2008, p. 29). This field-based relationship demonstrated organizational
reproduction of specific habitus from individual practice.
Summary. This review has focused on the meaning-making, relational definition
of race and racism for historically underrepresented minority STEM faculty. Figure 1
conceptualized the linked concepts of stereotypes, identity and socialization within the
framework of Bourdieu’s (1990, 1996, 1999) theory of field, capital, and habitus.

The experience of the faculty was central to this diagram but contextualized by explicit
forces that operate to construct defining stereotypes that construct a racialized identity.
For the racialized STEM faculty, the structure of the field and the accumulation of capital
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 40

were both the expression of the field of power which defined race. For Bourdieu, science
identity represented a secondary habitus set by the structures of power within the
academic science field. Norms of academic science were a secondary principle to the
dominator’s habitus. The dominating agents demanded the practice of certain norms and
perhaps internalization of those norms to gain power within the field. Through
Bourdieu’s theory, investigation of the lived experience of minoritized faculty within
academic science fields was made key to investigate the impact of racial identity defined
by power, the academic science socialization process defined through capital and norms,
and faculty science identity as secondary habitus and practice.
Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of early career minority
faculty in academic science fields. Exploration of the impact of stereotypes, issues of
identity and the extent and impact of socialization on minority STEM faculty were
planned to understand current strategies in the field and the perspectives of early career
faculty. Three research questions guided the inquiry:
1. What themes of minority experience in academic science had been
operationalized in fielded instruments?
2. What themes were confirmed and what new themes emerged in case studies
related to minority faculty experience or STEM faculty experience?
3. To what extent were new emergent themes confirmed in interviews with
minority STEM faculty?
Themes from this investigation informed further research in these areas and perhaps
clarified the intersections of racial and science identity.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 41

CHAPTER III: Methodology

The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of early career minority faculty
in academic science fields by the identification of unmeasured themes in academic science.
Phase one of this research was comprised of a search and content analysis of current instruments
used to operationalize minority faculty experience. In phase two, themes from instruments
became a priori codes for the document review of three case studies. Emergent themes from the
analysis were sorted and dimensions identified (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In phase three, a
survey and semi-structured interview protocol was created to validate and further explore
emergent themes. A purposive sample of four early career minority faculty members in the
natural sciences were interviewed. The data was cut and sorted then coded through questioning
and constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The final output of these linked phases was
recommendations of validated themes to inform future research. Three research questions guided
the inquiry:
1. What themes of minority experience in academic science had been operationalized in
fielded instruments?
2. What themes were confirmed and what new themes emerged in case studies related to
minority faculty experience or STEM faculty experience?
3. To what extent were new emergent themes confirmed in interviews with minority STEM
faculty?
Overall Study Design

Study design followed a mixed-method exploratory, sequential design (Creswell, 2009).

Qualitative methods included theoretical sampling, technical document review, and constant
comparative coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Descriptive statistics, including frequency data,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 42

were also used to evaluate application of codes and survey responses. Research was separated
into three phases—instrument review, case study review, and survey distribution followed by
interviews. The findings from each phase informed the subsequent phase. According to
Polkinghorne (2005) “[t]he experiential life of people [was] the area qualitative methods [were]
designed to study” (p. 138). Qualitative research used the context to understand the participant
(Creswell, 2009). The depth of research (in contrast to quantitative breadth) was particular to the
context and the participants. Phase one and two applied Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) principles of
technical document review to identify dimensions and themes across instruments and case
studies. Results of this analysis were used to create a survey instrument and an explanatory
semi-structured interview protocol. In phase three, early career minority science faculty (n = 4)
were interviewed and transcripts analyzed using the constant comparative method (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) to compare and contrast finding from the two reviews with faculty lived
experience. Findings then were used to confirm new research directions and identify constructs
where further investigation was warranted.
Figure of Study Design

Figure 2 described the overall design to show the alignment of research questions across
phases, methods of inquiry and salient criterion that guided the investigation. Of note, the
overall design of the research was exploratory, sequential, however, the interviews applied
explanatory design as it built on results from the survey (Creswell, 2009).
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 43

Case studies selection criterion: (1) described the experience of minorities in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics, (2) described the experience of minority faculty, or (3) examined the
university policies or practices in regards to underrepresented faculty members.
Survey instrument development: (1) participant selection criteria, (2) stereotype and meaning
exploration, (3) institutional recruitment practices, (4) identity vignette, (5) emergent implicit academic
science norms
Taxonomy Development—operationalized
theoretical framework
Instrument Review—identified instruments and
salient features
Phase One: Instrument Review
Method: Theoretical Sampling & Technical Document Review
RQ: What dimensions and themes of minority experience in academic science had
been operationalized in fielded instruments?
Phase Two: Case Study Review
Method: Theoretical Sampling & Technical Document Review
RQ: What themes were confirmed and what new themes emerged in case studies
related to minority faculty experience or STEM faculty experience?
Phase Three: Survey Distribution
Method: Self-administered to Study Participants, Cross-sectional Survey
RQ: To what extent were new emergent themes confirmed in interviews with minority
STEM faculty?

Figure 2 Study Design

Phase Three: Interview
Method: Semi-structured, audio recorded interviews of Study Participants
RQ: To what extent were new emergent themes confirmed in interviews with minority
STEM faculty?
Interview protocol—sequential explanatory design
based on distributed survey and tailored to
participant response
Responses—transcribed word for word and
analyzed using constant comparison open coding
and then clustering across codes
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 44

Phase One: Content Analysis of Current Instruments

In phase one, a search and content analysis of current instruments used to operationalize
minority faculty experience was conducted. The instrument search was directed by the question:
What dimensions and themes of minority experience in academic fields had been operationalized
in quantitative instruments? The lens of the contextual framework (Figure 1) guided
development of a three-dimensional taxonomy (Table 1) operationalizing this framework into an
evaluation tool for analyzing instruments, the aspects of culture, relationship (Bourdieu, 1990,
1996, 1999), and critical theory. “Operationalization is the process by which a researcher
Table 1

Instrument Review Selection Criteria

Prioritizing for the
Population:
Prioritizing for the Research
Design:
Prioritizing for the
Research Perspective
1

Higher education
settings in the U. S.
Measuring issues of race or
experiences of racism
Emic point of view
Etic point of view
Faculty populations Types of research design
(quantitative , qualitative
experimental , longitudinal
secondary data , evaluation )
Temporal orientation was
historical
Natural science
disciplines
Instruments rooted in participant
voice
Level of analysis was
underlying values or
assumptions
Race/Visible identity
(specifically: African
American, Native
American, Latina/o)
Instruments or interview protocols
derived from qualitative
investigation
Theoretical foundation:
social construction ;
critical theory
Complex or multidimensional
Discipline (Psychology
Sociology )
1
Based on Denison (1996) Table 1 Contrasting Organizational Culture and Organizational
Climate Research Perspectives (p. 625) in What is the difference between organizational culture
and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of
Management Review, 21(3), 619-654
[defined] how a concept was measured, observed, or manipulated within a particular study”
(Rios, Capobiano, & Godwin, 2017, p. 45). This method was informed by the work of Ashmore
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 45

and colleagues (2004) who “set out to find those measures that in [their] opinion [were]
relatively pure and methodologically divergent attempts to operationalize the dimensions” (p.
84). The following described the process of operationalizing these dimensions of measurement.
Prioritizing for the population was the natural outflow from the research questions that
focused on the experience of minority faculty in academic positions. The population designated
as the focus of this group was natural science professors. The preferred population for validation
or data collection were the criterion specified within this dimension. Instruments were
considered based on if the population was from higher education, investigating faculty,
specifying natural science disciplines, and disaggregating according to race/visible identity.
Specifically, it was noted if race/visible identity data was collected regarding the historically
bounded communities of African Americans, Native Americans, and Latina/os. Instruments
were analyzed based on their relationship to these standards; instruments that did not meet the
criterion were not eliminated, but this was noted in the discussion of their applicability.
Prioritizing for the design bridged into analysis of research approaches. Traditionally,
quantitative investigation described a sample to identify trends in data (habits, opinions, actions,
etc.) and generalized to a larger population (Creswell, 2009). Typically, the purpose was to test a
hypothesis operationalized from theory requiring control for confounding variables. Broadly,
qualitative research took a different approach focusing on the peculiarities within a specific
context, population, time, and setting (Creswell, 2009). Perspectives on qualitative data ranged
widely (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2009). Creswell cited four approaches: narrative and
phenomenology to study individuals, case studies, and grounded theory to “explore processes,
activities and events” (p. 177). Researchers had established methods which mix both quantitative
and qualitative investigation strategies. Issues of complexity, the interdisciplinary
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 46

nature of investigations, and need for expanded understanding had led to the evolution of mixed
methods research (Creswell, 2009). While mixed methods challenge philosophical assumptions
in both research approaches, researchers seeing the value of mixed methods research had
proposed various strategies to navigate the differences (Ashmore et al, 2004; Castro, Kellison,
Boyd & Kopak, 2010; Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992). Perspectives
such as critical theories (Crenshaw, 1991; McIntosh, 1988; Swartz, 2009; & Tanaka, 2002) as
well as transnational approaches (Stam & Shohat, 2012; Andreotti et al., 2015) had challenged
the epistemological, ontological, and metaphysical influences of the dominant narrative on the
academy and research perspectives. Andreotti and colleagues outlined a four-tiered description
of educational commitment to decolonize (mitigate and disrupt) education: no need, “soft-
reform, radical-reform, and beyond-reform” (p. 31). Others such as Else-Quest and Hyde (2016)
suggested that quantitative methods can both add to the investigation of power dynamics as long
as the assumptions of intersectional identity and the influence of both individual and context
were recognized as dynamic across social structures, institutions, and interpersonal interactions.
McCall (2005) proposed an inter-categorical approach to explore the dynamics of power and
subordination across multiple perspectives. Griffin and colleagues (2015) drew on Bourdieu’s
(1990, 1996, 1999) relational model into social justice perspectives to understand how social
positioning based on race and gender influences access to capital within the sciences.
The prioritizing for the design dimension was not intended to resolve the issues related
above; rather it was developed to reflect these differing perspectives. First, instruments that
directly investigated issues of race and racism were given priority because they were directly
assessing racialized experience. Research design was also classified (quantitative, qualitative,
experimental, etc). The criterion participant voice was focused on the preservation of the
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 47

individual’s experience through either multiple methods or quantitative investigations derived
from qualitative research. In analysis, the construct of critical voice was defined as an
instrument constructed through critical theory (dimension of research perspective), use of
multiple methods, or derived through qualitative investigation into quantitative instruments.
Finally, instruments were noted that reflected complexity by measuring multiple concepts or
intersections of variables.
The final dimension, prioritizing for research perspective, was deeply rooted in the
differing perspectives of research methodology and taken from an analysis of climate and culture
research by Denison (1996). Denison argued that while the investigation of climate and culture
had different approaches, they were “differences of perspective” about the same phenomena
(p. 625). The perspective was described from differences in epistemology, point of view,
methodology, level of analysis, temporal orientation, theoretical foundations, and discipline.
This analysis adapted categories of research perspective as describing the experience of minority
members of the faculty in the racialized academic fields required a synthesis across disciplines to
capture the complexities that may be missed by over-reliance on a singular method/priority. In
addition, rootedness in actual experience, the voice of the participant (as opposed to theoretical
perspective) and consideration of contextual factors of the discipline, institution, and culture
were required to investigate the complexities and underlying assumptions of the dominate
cultural narrative and the social position of individuals (Bourdieu, 1990, 1996, 1999). The emic
point of view as a criterion recognized the voice of the participant (rather than the researcher)
that shapes the understanding. Historical orientation permitted the discussion of race to be
rooted in the context of power. Addressing underlying values or assumptions was identified to
reflect the practice of cultural research to distinguish between surface artifacts, practices, or
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 48

habits and the underlying assumptions and values that support them (Denison, 1996). By
widening the theoretical frame to specifically note social construction and critical theory, this
criterion provided a location of the development of the instrument. In concert with this location,
discipline of origin also reflected the perspective from which the research was conducted.
The emphasis of the review was on what these instruments or protocols contribute to the
understanding and measurement of the experiences of minority faculty members, specifically in
the sciences. Therefore, frameworks comparing and contrasting perspectives were analyzed. In
all, the purpose of the taxonomy was to provide a context for the instrument and to identify
subsequent gaps in the research perspective of minority experience in academic science fields.
To note, Bourdieu’s theory of relationship (1990, 1996, 1999) offered guidance as a
framework to the research of the minority experience. The key link between the field, capital,
and power was habitus “or views of the world and a set of expectations based on social position”
(Griffin et al., 2015, p. 171). Where an individual was within the field, what capital they had and
how power related to that social position, all impacted the expectations they had of others,
themselves, and what others expect of them. Within this context, overlapping conceptions of
stereotype threat, identity formation, and socialization were carefully reviewed to understand the
field of science from the relationships of individuals to stereotypes (as defined by power), how
those stereotypes affected identity dimensions, and then how identity dimensions were
relationally connected to socialization processes.
Phase One—Search and Document Review. The purpose of this systematic, targeted
review of research was to identify and evaluate leading and emerging measures of minority
faculty experience. Corbin and Strauss (2008) characterized the review of technical documents
as useful for identification of concepts and dimensions of concepts to highlight similarities and
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 49

differences. The purpose of the content analysis was to identify seminal and emerging measures
of the minority faculty experience and to describe gaps and unexplored themes. This literature
search was informed by Abedin and colleagues (2012) who derived competency data from
existing research and Ashmore and colleagues (2004) who created a conceptual framework for
identity research. Ashmore described the research strategy as a “bottom-up approach” (p. 82)
with a goal to identify major theoretical approaches and not an exhaustive literature
review. Abedin described the use of “progressive filtering” beginning with a broad, cross
disciplinary search and narrowing as subtopics arose. Research techniques from Abedin and
team that were applied in this research were footnote chasing, citation searching, and refining
search criteria or berry picking (Bates, 1989).
The literature search began with seminal works identified in the review of literature:
STEM attrition (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997), diverse learning environments (Hurtado, Milem,
Clayton-Pederson & Allen, 1997), National Longitudinal Freshman Study, (Massey, Charles,
L und y , & F i s c he r , 201 1) , stereotype threat, (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson,
1995), identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Hogg, Terry & White, 1995; Stryker, 2002),
intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), and socialization (Austin, 2002). Cultural stereotypes were
identified as a point where the individual encounters the explicit meaning of definitions of
race. Stereotype threat became the beginning concept to identity instruments that described the
experience of underrepresented minority faculty in the sciences. To narrow the scope of the
search, ERIC and Education Source were the initial data bases. This limited the context of
research to the academic field which was the focus of this study. All sourced materials were
uploaded into End Note Citation Software.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 50

Searches and findings were tracked using an Excel document resulting in 144 reviewed
articles, journals, reports, or dissertations. The publication dates ranged from 1965 to 2017 with
the following in each decade: 1960-69, 1; 1970-79, 1; 1980-89, 10; 1990-99, 16; 2000-09, 41;
2010-2017, 75. Search words were refined as the research progressed and included stereotype
threat, stereotype threat measure, identity theory, identity theory, and social identity adding race
to search results, stereotype identity STEM, higher education “minority groups” faculty “science
culture”, graduate socialization frame, cultural, and identity and measures 2010-2017, Whiteness
theory, identity intersectionality, intersectionality, diverse climate, faculty survey, acculturative
stress, multidimensional acculturative stress across occupational culture, faculty sense of
belonging, and campus climate. Key word searches discovered 60 documents, 8 were found
searching journals or recent publications, and the remaining 76 were found through citation
searching or footnote chasing. The search spanned six data bases each resulting in tracked
articles: ERIC, 41; Education Source, 13; Proquest Social Sciences Database, 12; Proquest
Sociology, 2; Higher Education Research Institute, 2; and Google Scholar, 74. Instruments and
key literature were uploaded to Endnote.
The outcome of this review was a curated list of twenty-eight instruments that had been
used to describe the experience of underrepresented minorities. Each instrument was described
individually and recorded by hand using a worksheet of the taxonomy. Instruments were then
compared and contrasted by identifying key concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and seven themes
emerged. Results were synthesized across themes and reported in finding. The items on the 28
instruments were reviewed to identify key ideas and phrases that would capture the importance
and uniqueness of the measure. The result of this key ideas review was a list of 53 features that
were used as a priori criterion for the case study review.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 51

Phase Two: Literature Search

The purpose of this phase was to use the listed features from the review of measures in
phase one, to further describe the experience of minority faculty in academic science fields
across dimensions of individual experience, institutional process and professional domain
through already published case studies. Bringing literature into an investigation early on can
provide direction and demonstrate intent of the investigation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In
addition, the literature can “not only demonstrate scholarship, but also allows for the extending,
validating and refining of the field” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 40). The phase two literature
search was limited to case studies that described the experience of minorities in science,
technology, engineering, or mathematics, described the experience of minority faculty, or
examined the university policies or practices in regards to underrepresented faculty members.
Priority was given to research describing the science disciplines. The highest priority was given
to literature describing the experiences of minority science faculty. The purpose of this
limitation was to explore the context in which individuals had their experience as well as to glean
insight into experience rooted in the science discipline.
The search for case studies began during phase one as two case studies were found using
citation searching. When phase two of this study initiated, a targeted key word search was
conducted in ERIC and Education Source. Search terms used included “faculty of color
experiences” and the search was limited by “case study,” STEM, scholarly journal articles, and a
data range of 2000-2019. From results, a pool of 29 case studies were uploaded into Endnote.
Three were identified as best meeting the guidelines to explore different aspects of the theoretical
frame which contextualizes the experience of the individual within the academic science field
and the experience of minority faculty. Case one reflected the individual’s response to racial
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 52

identity in a STEM discipline combining both the concepts of race, stereotypes, identity, and the
dominant cultural narrative. Case two represented a deep dive into the academic science field
incorporating both faculty and graduate student experience, specially focused on norms. Case
three explored the field of power through a study of an elite institution’s policies and practices in
hiring faculty.
Each of the articles was loaded into Atlas-ti. The purpose of this content analysis was to
uncover emergent and unexplored themes that were present in the case studies. Corbin and
Strauss (2008) characterize the review of technical documents though different in their specific
details can be useful for identification of concept and dimensions of concepts.
Features from phase one used as a priori criterion for phase two were grouped according
to instrument themes. As a method, theoretical sampling used theory related material to
illuminate concepts of interest in social science research (Corbin & Strauss, 2012; Ryan &
Bernard, 2003). Authors Ryan and Bernard also described cutting and sorting as a way to apply
themes from research literature and group similar data. As a caution, an a priori theoretical
frame was not a pitcher to receive data but rather a beginning that can be modified or adjusted
based on the findings discovered through the inquiry. Corbin and Strauss (2012) echoed this
assertion by cautioning that current concepts in the literature guided sensitivity to significant
nuances but should not become labels for every experience. The literature revealed dimensions
and the researcher responded to create new codes from data that did not map onto existing
constructs. Any emergent themes or nuances of current constructs not represented in items
would be operationalized in an interview protocol.
In alignment with this method, the a priori criterion guided the exploration of the case
studies but were not labels for the experience. If needed, more than one code was applied to
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 53

quotations as descriptions of lived experience were not discrete but complex. A single code
“emergent” was created to capture new content. Emergent themes from all three case studies
were compared on content and dimensions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). These supported and new
themes became the basis for the interview protocol for Phase Three.
Phase Three: Survey and Semi-structured Interview Protocol

The purpose of this stage was to develop a semi-structured interview protocol informed
by the analysis of technical documents from the first two phases. Qualitative interviews were
most appropriate when exploratory work was required before quantitative work can be done and
when individual’s perceptions of processes within social units were being studied (King, 1994).
Qualitative research protocols were developed to explore the emergent concepts. All participants
were provided with a research guide that consisted of an assurance of confidentiality, details on
who was involved in the research, and an explanation of the goals of the research.
Because of the interrelatedness of the concepts of race, stereotypes, identity, and
socialization, phase three was divided into two parts. First, a survey (Appendix A) was designed
to introduce the topics to the participants. Second a follow up interview protocol (Appendix B)
was designed to explore responses given in the survey. The survey was cross-sectional and used
both frequency scales and 5-point Likert scales (Creswell, 2009). The initial section of the
survey followed the requirements of participation. The following sections were based on the
literature review filtered through the analysis of case studies. Sections included: participant
selection, stereotypes and meanings, institutional practices, identity vignette, and emergent
implicit academic science norms. The survey was distributed through Qualtrics directly to only
study participants (n=4) by providing a link. Once the survey was complete, an interview was
scheduled.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 54

The semi-structured instrument was designed to further explanations (explanatory
sequential) by participants initiated in the survey (Creswell, 2009). The interview followed a
standard structure of ice breaker questions, content questions and probing questions, and
concluded with an acknowledgement of the participant’s time and contribution. Therefore, the
interview protocol was tailored to the participant’s responses to questions regarding stereotypes
and meaning, identity, and implicit academic science norms. An additional question regarding
participant emotion was added based on the discovered affective instruments in phase one.
Phase three: Conducting Interviews. The purpose of this stage was to conduct
interviews of early career underrepresented science faculty and begin to confirm and explore
emergent themes from previous phases. Limiting selection criteria for participant selection was
essential to furthering understanding of the early faculty perspective. Selection criteria were:
(1) S e l f-identified (including multi-racial) as historically underrepresented minorities
(Black/African Americans, Native/Native Americans, and Latina/os); and (2) Ph.Ds searching
for faculty positions or Ph.Ds in faculty positions; and (3) Faculty for no more than 4 years; and
(4) Teaching in the natural science fields; and (5) Member of a national minority professional
organization; and (6) Demonstrating commitment to giving back to the underrepresented
community (e.g. mentoring students, community advocacy or involvement, presenting at a
national minority professional conference, etc.). Faculty were identified through contacts in
universities, staff working in diversity science fields, national minority professional
organizations, and other contacts in the field. Snowball sampling was used to identify ideal
potential participants (Creswell, 2009). As specified by the IRB, demographic and career-related
data was disaggregated to protect anonymity.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 55

Identified participants (Table 2) were first provided a link to an electronic survey and
then a follow up interview was conducted. Both the survey and interview protocol were
developed as an output of phases one and two. The survey collected demographic and career
Table 2
Description of Participants

Description Participants (n = 4)
Gender Women (3)
Men (1)
Faculty Status Full Time (1)
Part-time (2)
Seeking Full-time Faculty (1)
Membership of Professional Organizations One (3)
Two (1)
Activity Involvement Graduate student advisement (1)
Student mentoring (4)
Community engagement (1)
Minority organization involvement (2)
Race (multiple races indicated) Black/African American (2)
Asian (1)
Latina/o (2)
information and proceeded with four major questions regarding terms to describe racial status,
recruitment practices, a vignette of one case story focused on identity, and norms of academic
science. Each survey was assigned a code and then identifying data was removed (Groenewald,
2004). Interviews were conducted and recorded with the knowledge and consent of
interviewees. Each recording was assigned a code linking it to the survey data. The
interviews integrated the participant’s answers to each of the survey items and asking probing
questions to clarify and explore the topics. Recordings were transcribed word-for-word and all
identifying data was removed from the transcript and the recording.
The creation of the survey and interview protocol from phase one and two findings was
an application of theoretical sampling. Corbin and Strauss define theoretical sampling as,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 56

a method of data collection based on concepts/themes derived from data. The purpose of
theoretical sampling [was] to collect data from places, people, and events that will
maximize opportunities to develop concepts in terms of their properties and dimensions,
uncover variations, and identify relationships between concepts (p. 143).
The use of this method allowed for the testing of concepts and following of new emergent
concepts (analytical leads) to further elucidate the analytic trail (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As a
context for the development of an interview protocol, theoretical sampling added flexibility to
follow new leads within the interview process and explore emergent concepts that were related to
the overall research question of describing the experience of early career minority science
faculty. This study will not reach the point of saturation as it was designed to clarify and confirm
analysis explored in phase one and phase two.
Coding Interviews. Interview transcripts were uploaded and analyzed in Atlas-ti. This
software facilitated for refinement of analysis throughout the process and exporting of the code
book with specific citations. Applying the strategies of constant comparative analysis, the
transcribed interviews were open coded to conceptualize and understand the details or sub-
concepts presented and then clustered using strategies of questioning and constant comparison
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This method focused on asking questions and making comparisons
across the form and dimension of the data. These questions were used to see nuances and to
make comparisons across interviewees’ perspectives. Throughout the analysis, memos were
written to capture the progression of the coding and provided the tool for tracking the subtleties
of each interviewee across the four major categories of the semi-structured interview. Axial
codes were created based on revealed connections and exported with the supporting data.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 57

Reliability, Validity, and Assumptions.

For qualitative studies, reliability indicates the methods used were recognized within the
field (Creswell, 2009). The use of field recognized qualitative design methods such as constant
comparative method and theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) as well as the use of
theory-related material (Ryan & Bernard, 2003) support the reliability of the study. To further
check reliability, transcripts were checked for accuracy, codes were checked for drift in coded
data to ensure definitional stability and a single researcher completed all of the analysis.
Validity tested the accuracy of the findings (Creswell, 2009). For qualitative
investigations, triangulation, or the use of different sources of information, was a method used to
validate findings. For this study, triangulation was designed into the research method. Phase
one investigated current research and theory used to understand minority experience, identified
themes across the instruments, and produced a list of features which served as a priori criterion.
In phase two, the criteria were used to review in-depth case studies to test current theories and
research as well as to identify emergent themes. In phase three, interviews with the target
population were conducted to further validate, amend, and extend knowledge of the minority
experience. This use of participant knowledge and experience through the case studies and the
interviews served as a validity check of the initial analysis. This approach was aligned with the
theoretical guidance of qualitative research and represented an emic approach to knowledge
building (Creswell, 2009; Denison, 1996).
Finally, a major assumption of this research was that the experience of minority faculty in
the sciences was different than their white counterparts due to historical and cultural factors.
This assumption was based on extensive theoretical and investigative literature that examines
structural construction in the US and its effect on individuals (Austin, 2002; Bourdieu, 1990,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 58

1996, 1999; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Kroeger & Kluckhorn, 1962; Stam & Shohat, 2012;
Steele & Stryker, Serpe & Hunt, 2005; Weidman & Stein, 2001).
Ethical Standards and Approvals

This study received IRB approval and adhered to all standards for ethical conduct
described in the American Educational Research Association (AERA). All participants were
given an explanation of the research and provided with a consent form. Groenewald (2004)
outlined informed consent to include: (1) acknowledgement of participating in research; (2) the
purpose of the research (stating the central question NOT required); (3) outline of procedures of
the research; (4) identification of the risk and benefits of the research; (5) assurance of the
voluntary nature of the research; and (6) procedures used to protect confidentiality. Participants
were notified that their responses would remain confidential and their results be released in
aggregate, not individually, and without identification of their university. In any published
report, no released information would make it possible to identify study participants. Research
records were kept on computers according to all stipulations made by the Internal Review Board
(IRB) at the University of Southern California.
Limitations. As the sample was a qualitative study, results were not generalizable to the
population. This study sought to describe the experience of early minority science faculty.
However, this experience might have been mischaracterized. In addition, by including post-
doctoral participants seeking faculty positions and limiting participant’s years in faculty
positions to a maximum of four years, data could be skewed to an overemphasis on graduate
training experiences and an underrepresentation of faculty responsibilities. Also, the study was
limited to the study of natural science faculty and might not have captured or represented the
experience of faculty in the other disciplines such as the medical or social sciences. In addition,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 59

the fields within the natural sciences were characterized by high variance that was not captured.
The limited sample size of the interviews and narrow selection criteria also limited the
applicability of findings and suggested the need for further study.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 60

CHAPTER IV: Results

The results for this study were completed in three phases (Figure 2). Each phase and
results were detailed to explore the known and emergent experiences of early career historically
underrepresented faculty in academic science fields.
Phase One: Content Analysis of Current Instruments

The first goal of this research project was to identify and evaluate leading and emerging
measures of minority faculty experience. The literature search began with seminal works
identified in the review of literature: STEM attrition (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997), diverse learning
environments (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson & Allen, 1997), National Longitudinal
Freshman Study, (Massey, Charles, Lundy, & Fischer, 2011), stereotype threat, (Spencer, Steele,
& Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995), identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Hogg, Terry &
White, 1995; Stryker, 2002), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) and socialization (Austin, 2002).
Cultural stereotypes were identified as a point where definitions of race transfer to the individual.
Stereotype threat became the beginning concept to identity instruments that described the
experience of underrepresented minority faculty in the sciences. To narrow the scope of the
search, ERIC and Education Source were the initial data bases. This limited the context of
research to the academic field which was the focus of this study. All sourced materials were
uploaded into End Note Citation Software.
Searches and findings were tracked using an excel document resulting in 144 reviewed
articles, journals, reports, or dissertations. The publication dates ranged from 1965 to 2017 with
the following each decade: 1960-69, 1; 1970-79, 1; 1980-89, 10; 1990-99, 16; 2000-09, 41;
2010-2017, 75. Search words included stereotype threat, stereotype threat measure, identity
theory, identity theory and social identity adding race to search results, stereotype identity,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 61

STEM, higher education “minority groups” faculty “science culture”, graduate socialization
frame, cultural and identity and measures 2010-2017, Whiteness theory, identity
intersectionality, intersectionality, diverse climate, faculty survey, acculturative stress,
multidimensional acculturative stress across occupational culture, faculty sense of belonging, and
campus climate. Key word searches discovered 60 documents, 8 were found searching journals
or recent publications, and the remaining 76 were found through citation searching. The search
spanned six data bases each discovering tracked articles: ERIC, 41; Education Source, 13;
Proquest Social Sciences Database, 12; Proquest Sociology, 2; Higher Education Research
Institute, 2; and Google Scholar, 74. Instruments and key literature were uploaded to Endnote.
The outcome of this review was a curated list of twenty-eight instruments that were used
to operationalize the experience of underrepresented minorities. Once identified, content was
analyzed according to similarities and differences across concepts or dimensions (Corbin &
Strauss, 2012). Seven themes emerged (Table 3). In the following section, each theme was
introduced and the instruments were listed with a short summary.
Table 3

Identified Themes

Number: Theme Table

One: Faculty experiences Table 4
Two: Stereotype Threat Table 5
Three: Learning Environments Table 6
Four: Racial Identity Table 7
Five: Affective Aspects Table 8
Six: Racism Table 9
Seven: Socialization Table 10

Instrument Theme: Faculty Experiences

Instruments measuring aspects of the faculty experience were distributed nationally or
locally to understand the URM experience. These instruments provided a starting point for
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 62

exploring the experience of faculty members in both STEM and non-STEM fields. Those of
national scope provided the widest generalizations of the experience of faculty members. Those
locally administered demonstrated the challenge of surveying a small number of individuals
while maintaining the confidentiality of the participants. Table 4 provided details for the
instruments.
Table 4

Faculty Experiences Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E.
B., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M.
C., Suchard, M. R. & Hurtado, S.
(2014) Cited by 88
Hurtado, S. & Figueroa, T., (2013) No
citation information
Martinez, V., Miller, M. H., & Tyson,
W. (2014) Cited by 7
Blackwell, L. V., Snyder, L. A., & Mavriplis,
C., (2009) Cited by 43
Zambrana, R. E., Wingfield, A. H.,
Lapeyrouse, L. M, Davila, B. A., Hoagland,
T. L., & Valdez, R. B. (2017) Cited by 2
2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey

Women of Color among STEM Faculty in
NRC Publication
Aspects of Fit

Attitudes, Performance and Fair Treatment

Perceived Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Class
Bias Scale (p. 212) & interviews

The HERI survey (Eagan, et al., 2014) was a national data set about faculty experience
over issues of climate, racial conflict, diversity, curriculum, racial discrimination, and faculty
load. The data did show differences in perception when disaggregated by race. When directly
investigating gender and race for STEM faculty, the data showed that women of color were the
least represented, experienced more subtle discrimination, suffered stress from a lack of personal
time, and experienced family-work balance issues. Because this data was aggregated over large
data sets, the more nuanced experiences of individuals were not captured. The two surveys of
single institutions seeking to understand issues of climate, isolation, racism and fit, identified
dimensions of the minority faculty experience. However, such a small sample discouraged
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 63

participation because disaggregating based on data can reveal the identity of participants.
Finally, Zambrana and colleagues (2017) investigation described the reality of persistent racism
and discrimination in academic fields as well as the perceived stature of minority scholars and
the additional burden of additional duties demanded by the institutions. The following themes
explored in more depth aspects summarized in these instruments.
Instrument Theme: Stereotype Threat

Based on the framework of the dominant narrative, this review began with instruments
which were used to measure the impact of stereotypes on individuals (Table 5). Steele and
Aronson (1995) proposed the theory of stereotype threat, a fear of confirming a stereotype.
Table 5

Stereotype Instruments

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M.
(1999)
Cited by 3054
Spencer, S. J. (1993) unpublished
dissertation
Barnard, L. l., Burley, H., Olivarez, A., &
Crooks, S. (2008) Cited by 11
Pinel, E. C. (1999)
Cited by 1060
Picho, K., & Brown, S. W. (2011) Cited by
35
Stereotype Vulnerability Testing

Stereotype Vulnerability Scale

Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (validation
study) (r = .82)
Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire

Social Identities and Attitude Scale
(r = 0.81 to 0.95)
Smith, L., & Cokely, K. (2016) Cited by 5 Social Identities and Attitude Scale
(validation study) (r = .81 to .94)

As theory driven research, stereotype threat provided an explanation of how individuals
experience stereotypes. Stigma consciousness proposed a deeper analysis of why a person might
be affected by a negative stereotype. The SIAS tackled complexity through multiple constructs
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 64

to understand what moderated or contributed to stereotype threat. These instruments had served
as foundational works for many research on minority experience.
Instrument Theme: Learning Environments

Diverse learning environments (Hurtado, 1997) was theorized as the interaction of the
student with the historical, cultural and social aspects as well as the climate of the learning
setting. Many variables such as sense of belonging had been examined within the rich texture of
this research to understand what mitigates or mediates its effect on student performance and
persistence. Instruments chosen for this section (Table 6) reflected strong connections to race
and dimensions that had been linked to minority experience and STEM fields.
Table 6

Learning Environments Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012)
Cited by 123
Cable, D. M. & DeRue, D. S. (2002)
Cited in 1379
Hurtado, S. & Carter, D. F. (1997)
Cited by 1443
Malone, G. P., Pillow, D. R., & Osman, A.
(2012) Cited by 80
Rankin, S. R. & Reason, R. D. (2005)
Cited by 485
Group-Based Performance Anxiety
(r = .76)
Subjective Fit Perceptions (r = .84 - .91)

Sense of Belonging, College Transition, and
General College Climate (in text)
General Belongingness Scale (r = .92)

Personal Campus Experiences, Perception of
Campus Climate, Perceptions of Institutional
Actions

Researching learning environments acknowledged the influence of the social
environment on individuals and instruments selected represented significant works within the
field. Performance anxiety through group membership was shown to affect persistence in a
major (Beasley & Fischer, 2012) and perceptions of fit used to predict individual choice (Cable
and DeRue, 2002). Hurtado and Carter (1997) studied student engagement and found negative
perceptions of a hostile environment had direct negative effects on a sense of belonging.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 65

Potential applications of this research involved understanding how hostile environments may
impact minority science faculty. Malone, Pillow, & Osman (2012) work suggested that
belonging must be achieved and not a passive tolerance. Hurtado & Carter (1997) and Rankin
and Reason (2005) developed instruments through quantitative investigation. As these both were
multidimensional instruments, they represented an important attempt to measure the complexity
of the experience of students in a college experience. The only instrument to sample a non-
student population was Rank and Reason’s (2005) personal campus experiences, perception of
campus climate and perceptions of institutional action. This instrument provided empirical
evidence that racial identity affected perception. This finding should be explored for faculty as
well.
Instrument Theme: Racial Identity

Theories of identity intersected with issues of race through multiple disciplines. For
structural identity theorists (Stryker, Serpe & Hunt, 2005) identity was regarded as stable and
role based. Structures limited the selection of roles an individual can choose from and identity
salience was the readiness to act out a cognitive schema of a role. Social identity approach
encompassed two theoretical positions—social identity theory (SIT) (Hogg, Terry & White,
1995) and self-categorization theory (SCT) (Turner & Reynolds, 2004). SIT proposed that
individuals feel they belong to a social identity that describes them, prescribed behavior and was
the basis for evaluation of other groups. This identity was integrated into the self-concept along
a continuum from individual identity to social identity. Variables influence what was most
salient. Identity, therefore, was not stable, but a readiness to identify was. While SIT focused on
the connection between groups, SCT described an intragroup dimension. This theory described
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 66

the process of category creation and the psychological process of shifting from ‘you and me’ to
‘we and us’. The most salient (hierarchical) identity operated one at a time.
Table 7

Racial Identity Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A., Chavous, T.
M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997)
Cited by 1033
Massey, D., Charles, C., Lundy, G., &
Fischer, M. J. (2011) Cited in 605
Tropp, L. R. & Wright, S. C. (2001) Cited
by 523
Multidimensional Inventory of Black
Identity

National Longitudinal Survey of
Freshman
Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self (IIS)
(r = .76, retest reliability)

The above three instruments listed in Table 7, in part operationalized identity in

relationship to race or social identity. Considering identity theory’s centrality of racial identity
across roles or SIT identity beliefs power to describe, prescribe and evaluate in different
circumstances between individual and social identity for minority faculty in the sciences, these
instrument helped to reveal the reasons for strategies such as compartmentalizing identities for
occupational success. As the instruments were reflective of specific theoretical frames, this
study investigation through lived experience represented an opportunity to expand data gathered
based on undergraduate populations. The final visual instrument was a way to further probe the
self-categorization as a scientist or a member of a social group.
Instrument Theme: The Role of Affect

The approaches described to this point had focused on the cognitive, developmental or
social psychological aspects of individual’s identity and also investigated how those processes
were impacted by environments. The affective domain had largely been missed. Schein (2006)
described the application of identity theory to organizational cultures with a reference to the
difference an extended apprenticeship can make for occupations such as physicians. In this case,
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 67

value congruence became important. The following measures (Table 8) each explored affect
from very different theoretical positions but all tested the effect of emotions in the process of
committing.
Table 8

Affect Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Deemer, E. D., Lin, C., Graham, R., & Soto,
C. (2016) Cited by 3
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A.
(1993) Cited in 6745
van Dick, R. & Wagner, U. (2002) Cited by
179
Stereotype Threat in Science Scale-
Gender (STSS-G)
Occupational Commitment

Affective Organizational Identification

The STSS-G was significant as factors of social identity and affect integrated the
complexity of intersecting identities. Affect spanned stereotype threat, commitment to
occupations, and aspects of organizational identity. Seven items related to the affective
consequences of stereotype threat and the remaining four on aspects of identity threat. The
construct of identity threat was unique as it focused beyond characterizing identity and identity
threat to the participant’s emotional response. Affective commitment (ACS, Meyer, Allen, &
Smith, 1993) differentiated between affective or value congruence and seemed most applicable
to the exploration of the interaction of social identity and occupational commitment. van Dick
and Wagner (2002) evidenced that both identity and commitment were important yet separate
constructs, and affective organizational identity was predictive of job-related outcomes. All
dimensions of affect were understudied in minority faculty experience. All dimensions of affect
were understudied in minority faculty experience.
Instrument Theme: Racism

The measurement of racialized experience measured behavior and perception to
understanding the experience of underrepresented minorities in various context. Specifically the
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 68

instruments measured the experience of racism, discrimination, and prejudice by testing trust,
overt actions, subtle actions and connections to health in different contexts (Table 9).
Table 9

Racism Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name
Terrell F. & Terrell, S. (1981) Cited by
447
Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M.,
Chan, S., Brief, A. P. & Bradley, J.
C. (2003) Cited in 343
Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, Jr., A.
L., & Romero Dias, C. E. (2012) Cited
by 87
Cultural Mistrust Inventory
(r = .86, test-retest reliability)
Everyday Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Racial Microaggressions Scale
(r = .949)
Harrell, S.P. (2000) Cited by 1023 Racism and Life Experiences Scales (in Bond, M.
A., Kalaja, A., Markkanen, P. Cazeca, D., Daniel S.,
Tsurikova, L., & Punnett, L., 2007)
Utsey, S. O. & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996)
Cited in 346
Index of Race-Related Stress

The instrument, Everyday Racial Discrimination in the Workplace, established a
relationship between mistreatment and physical well-being for Black participants but was based
on secondary data analysis (Deitch et al., 2003). Harrell’s (2000) instruments measured the
multi-dimensional impacts of race-related stress across lived experiences. In reviewing the items
(as available through Bond et al., 2007) the construct Daily Life Experience (DLE) tackled the
complexity of racism by measuring the emotional reaction of others, offensive communication,
lowered expectations, misclassification below your rank, and being asked to represent your entire
group. The construct Life Experiences and Stress (STR) investigated the impact of racism on
career choice, mentorship, desirable assignments, task-ability matching, being ‘in the loop’,
criticism, and micromanagement. Utsey & Ponterotto’s (1996) instrument of institutional
racism might also provide significant insight into employment-related items such as missed
hiring, promotions, pay or duties and include expectations of compliance to the way things were
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 69

experienced. It was important to note that Index of Race-Related Stress (Utsey & Ponterotto,
1996) and Harrell’s (2000) instruments were rooted in qualitative investigation and may be more
reflective of lived experience.
Instrument Theme: Socialization

The heart of the faculty experience was socializing into the discipline through the training
in a doctoral program and continuing socialization into the professorate. The instruments in
Table 10 outlined studies of socialization with differing perspectives.
Table 10

Socialization Measured

Author (Date) Citations Instrument Name

Rios, D. & Stewart, A. J. (2015) Cited by 3 Identity across race/ethnicity and gender in
STEM faculty
Bancroft, S. F., Benson, S. K., & Johnson-
Whitt, E. (2016) Cited by 1

Estrada, M., Woodcock, A, Hernandez, P. R.,
& Schultz, P. W. (2011) Cited by 125
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J.
L. (2011) Cited by 101
McNair Scholars' Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Graduate Experience
Science Self-efficacy, Science Identity,
Scientific Community Objectives Value Scales
Race, Racism and Power

Rios and Stewart’s (2015) work demonstrated the complexity of faculty identity across
race/ethnicity and gender categories with some support for the hypotheses proposed. While there
was a clear shared institutional perspective, minority status was influenced by intersectionality
shown through between group differences. The study did support further testing of faculty
differences to understand how categories of race/ethnicity and gender impact STEM faculty
across institutions. The Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program supported
minority students programmatically to prepare them for doctoral success in STEM fields
(Bancroft, Benson, & Johnson-Whitt, 2016). It was important to recognize the distinction of this
instrument as an evaluation tool, not a research tool. Authors challenged researchers to continue
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 70

to explore of the minority experience in institutional cultures that perpetuate educational
inequities.
Estrada and colleges (2011) tested the TIMSI model social influence in socialization
(tripartite integration model of social influence) to understand the relationship between self-
efficacy, science identity and endorsing the values of the system for African Americans and
Hispanic/Latino/as. These authors were interpreting Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)
which posits that the social system (lower barriers and higher support) actually socializes
students to a community supporting their success. Analysis of data actually shifted the
importance of self-efficacy in predicting persistence to student’s identifying as scientist and
endorsing the norms of the social system of science.
Turner, Gonzalez, and Wong (2011) investigated the lived experiences of faculty women
of color in primarily White institutions and also specifically queried the affect that Gratz and
Grutter (two Supreme Court cases ruling on affirmative action in the academic setting) had on
their experience and institution. The qualitative investigation was rooted in Critical Race Theory
and Critical Race Feminism and specifically sought to understand the women’s experience
through the lens of race, racism and power as it intersected with issues specific to their gender
and race. Overall, this qualitative analysis found the challenges of faculty women of color on
predominately White campuses much unchanged. They described “experiences of
marginalization, subtle discrimination, racism and institutional racism, gender-bias and
institutional sexism, and difficulties with student who do not expect to be taught by women of
color” (p. 209). Whiteness was an invisible standard that normalized these experiences.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 71

Summary of Instrument Content Analysis

This list of instruments was curated as a first step to understanding the lived experience
of minority STEM faculty. The priority of this phase was to identify what has already been
measured of this experience specifically within academic science fields, and to further
knowledge by identifying emerging themes. To summarize this section, a list (Table 11) was
compiled to summarize the themes, instruments (presented in order of appearance in text) and
evaluation results.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 72

1 1
1

1

1

Table 11
Instrument Analysis Against Selection Criterion
Theme
Instrument Name

Population Design Research Perspectives
Faculty Experiences
2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey
Women of Color among STEM Faculty
Aspects of Fit 2
Attitudes, Performance and Fair Treatment
Perceived Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Class Bias Scale

Stereotype Threat
Stereotype Vulnerability Scale
3
Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire
Social Identities and Attitude Scale
3
Learning Environments
Group-Based Performance Anxiety

Subjective Fit Perceptions (none)
Sense of Belonging, College Transition, and General
College Climate
General Belongingness Scale
Personal Campus Experiences, Campus Climate,
Institutional Actions
Racial Identity
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity
National Longitudinal Survey of Freshman
1
Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self (IIS)
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 73

Table 11 cont.

Instruments Analysis Against Selection Criterion
Theme
Instrument Name
Population Design Research Perspectives
Role of Affect
Stereotype Threat in Science Scale-Gender
4

Occupational Commitment (none)

Affective Organizational Identification

5 5

Racism
Cultural Mistrust Inventory

6

Everyday Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

7

Racial Microaggressions Scale

1

Racism and Life Experiences Scale

1

Index of Race-Related Stress

Socialization
Race/ethnicity/gender Identity STEM faculty

8

McNair Scholars' STEM Graduate Experience

9 1

Science Self-efficacy, Science Identity, and Scientific

Community Objectives Value Scales
Race, Racism and Power
1

1 Included in sample 2 Modified validated instrument 3 Math 4 Physics 5 K-12 6 Black/White 7 Army/Navy 8 Science and Engineering 9 Program participants
Population: Higher Education Setting; Faculty; STEM; Visible identity (Race) focus. Instrument: Quantitative;
Qualitative; Experimental design; Longitudinal; Secondary data; Evaluation; Complex Racism, discrimination
directly measured; Participant voice Research Perspectives: Etic; Emic; Historical context; Values and
Assumptions; Critical theory; Social Construction; Psychology; Sociology
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 74

Analysis of Instruments

As the purpose of this review was to identity current strategies to measure STEM
minority faculty experiences in higher education, the chart showed gaps in STEM population
studies, varied strategies for quantitative instruments, and strong patterns across research
perspectives. This section outlined the findings from this analysis.
Population Criterion. When comparing the populations studied in the instruments, gaps
arose. While over two thirds of the studies were conducted in a higher education setting, Figure
2 showed the investigation of faculty and STEM were understudied. Also over three-fourths of
the studies focused on race.
Figure 3 Analysis by Population Criterion

Race 22
STEM included 7
STEM 6
Faculty 6
Higher Education 21
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Instruments
Those instruments that did not focus on race were studying the related constructs of
belongingness, fit perceptions, occupational commitment, and affective organizational
identification. Also, gender was included in the focus of nine instruments. To note, the
Stereotype Vulnerability Scale (Spencer, 1993) was tested as a measure of the impact of gender
stereotypes on math performance. The development of this instrument was not related to race.
The Stereotype Threat in Science Scale-Gender (Bernard, et al., 2008), an attempt to replicate the
SVS through a domain-specific instrument, also focused exclusively on gender. The validation
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 75

of the instrument failed perhaps due to the challenge of taking experimental designs into real-
world settings.
Observations stemming from this analysis included the need for expansion of STEM and
STEM faculty studies. Two small-scale studies (Blackwell, et al, 2009; Martinez, et al., 2014)
outlined some of the challenges of this work. These studies were both small in scale and directly
focused on identifying differences between minority faculty experience and non-minority
faculty. Participation rates were low and many of those completing the survey omitted
identifying demographic data. National studies (Eagan, et al., 2014; Hurtado, et al., 2013;
Zambrana, et al., 2017) broadened the sample of faculty and increase participation gaining
valuable descriptions of experiences. The length of the survey limited the explorations of
specific topics to single validated items (Eagan, et al., 2014; Hurado et al., 2013). Zambrana’s
research approached the work through mixed methods which deepened findings but increased
time and cost. Capturing differences became out of reach due to sample size. Estrada,
Woodcock, Hernandez and Shultz’s (2011) conducted a longitudinal study of 1053 minority
science students (not faculty) in STEM fields considering domain specific efficacy, identity and
community values. Overall description and characterization of the faculty experience was
understudied.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 76

Design Criterion. Through examination of the design criterion, layers of unexpected
information became evidenced. The first step was to consider the different designs (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Types of Research Design Only
Evaluation
Longitudinal
Experimental Design
Mixed or Multi-method
Quantitative Only

18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Instruments

Over 60% of the research designs were quantitative. To further characterize instruments beyond
traditional categories of quantitative and qualitative, this review considered the complexity of
dimensions and voice of the participants as well as the method by which the instrument was
developed. Figure 5 showed the evaluated instruments in relationship to reviewed dimensions.
Figure 5 Analysis of Remaining Characterizations of Design

Critical Voice
Racisim/Discrimination
Complexity
Derived from Qualitative

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Instruments

Complexity was defined by the intersection of variables or multiple dimensions. The
importance of intersectionality was underscored by Black feminists’ responses to
deconstructionists’ views that race was defined by individuals (Crenshaw, 1991). Else-Quest
and Hyde (2016) built on these ideas and challenged theorists to incorporate their reality.
1
3
1
5

10

11

6

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 77

4

Quantitative measures derived from qualitative investigation, rather than being exclusively
theory-based and hypothesis driven research, began to reach past the limits of current
understanding and draw in the richness of lived experiences.
Figure 6 Analysis of Critical Voice Only

Two or More Dimensions
Framed in Critical Theory
Derived from Qualitative
Mixed Methods
8
8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Instruments

Critical voice (Figure 6) indicates an instrument that was constructed through a critical
frame (either critical theory or participant voice), used multiple methods and/or was derived from
qualitative investigations. Overall, only 35.7% of measures demonstrated aspects critical voice
documenting a gap in instrument development.
Research Perspectives. Etic and Emic were primary research perspectives that describe
the view point of the researcher in relationship to the participants. Etic perspectives lent power
to the views of researcher while emic positions gave voice to participants. Figure 7 showed the
overwhelming perspective to be etic.
Figure 7 Research Point of View

Emic
Etic 24
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Instruments

5

5

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 78

As much of this work began in the discipline of psychology (13 instruments only with
etic and psychology dimensions), the influence of this research perspective was understandable.
Figure 8 showed the additional dimensions for measures that had an Etic perspective.
Figure 8 Analysis of Etic Instruments (n = 24)

Critical Theory
Social Construction
Values/Assumptions
Historical
Sociology
Psychology

24
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Scales

While the focus of psychology was the individual, the analysis indicated that some instruments
within psychology were broadening their perspective to include to social influence, historical
context, underlying causes, and both social construction and critical theory. The experience of
minority faculty within STEM fields where underrepresentation remained high required
examination of such factors beyond the individual.

2

6
6
6

1

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 79

Emic measures, as described by these dimensions, were shown in Figure 9. They
presented a much more complex approach. Of the four instruments, all were rooted in history.
Figure 9 Analysis of Emic Instruments (n = 4)

Critical Theory
Social Construction
Values/Assumptions
Historical 4
Sociology
Psychology 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Number of Scales

The three framed by critical theory also were shaped by critical voice. Two of the instruments
were quantitative and were derived from qualitative research. One qualitative study added
frequency data to further understand interview responses and themes. These instruments were
examples of new methods that broaden the findings of conventional research perspectives to
capture the richness of minority lived experience. To note, no instruments used the relational
frame of Bourdieu to measure dimensions of field, capital or habitus which presents a gap in
current research.
Features of Instruments

To complete this section, a list of fifty-five features was included (Table 12) as a priori
criterion for Phase Two. Through analysis of the instruments, unique feature emerged and were
noted. The dimensions of the taxonomy (Population, Design and Research Perspectives) and
criterion also informed the development of features as each instrument was considered for the
differences that it measured within the theme. For example, instruments in racial identity came
from varying theoretical perspectives. The features arose from key synergies in those
instruments measuring those divergent frameworks. In some cases, specific items were used to
0
1
3

1

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 80

develop features. As an example, Science Community Objectives Value (Estrada et al., 2011)
measured stated science values such as the value of research to solve problems, discovery, new
knowledge and collaboration with colleagues. As this measure was the only one specific in
aspects of scientific values, the features included theses unique items to use in coding case
studies. The following chart identified the theme, instrument name and features that served as a
priori criterion in the review of case studies.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 81

Table 12

Themes, Instruments and Features

Themes Instrument Name Features
Faculty Experiences 2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey Climate
Women of Color among STEM Faculty in NRC
Publication
Racial conflict
Racial discrimination
Aspects of Fit Isolation
Attitudes, Performance and Fair Treatment Undervalued
Perceived Gender, Race/Ethnicity and Class Bias Scale
(p. 212) & interview
Overburdened work load
Stress
Stereotype Threat Stereotype Vulnerability Scale Vulnerability
Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire Stigma
Stereotypes
Social Identities and Attitude Scale Racial identity and ability
Learning Group-Based Performance Anxiety Expectations of my racial identity
Environments Subjective Fit Perceptions Personal values and university values
Sense of Belonging, College Transition, and General
College Climate
Fitting in
Receiving support
General Belongingness Scale Excluded or Included
Personal Campus Experiences, Perception of Campus
Climate, Perceptions of Institutional Actions
Response
Racial Identity Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity Centrality of race
Private regard
Ideology about race
National Longitudinal Survey of Freshman
Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self (IIS)
American and racial identity
Picture of identity
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 82

Table 12 cont.

Themes, Instruments and Features

Themes Instrument Name Features
Affective Aspects Stereotype Threat in Science Scale-Gender
Occupational Commitment
Emotional response to stereotype threat
Commitment to the profession
Affective Organizational Identification Attached to organizational identification

Racism

Cultural Mistrust Inventory

Issues of trust
Everyday Racial Discrimination in the Workplace Mistreatment
Effect on well being
Racial Microaggressions Scale Invisibility
Criminality
Low achieving
Sexualized
Foreigner/not belonging
Environmental invalidations
Racism and Life Experiences Scale Perceived racism
Index of Race-Related Stress Cultural racism
Institutional racism
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 83

Table 12 cont.

Themes, Instruments and Features

Themes Instrument Name Features
Socialization Identity across race/ethnicity and gender in STEM
faculty
Heightened responsibility
Race or cultural privilege
Being convenient diversity
McNair Scholars' Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Graduate Experience
Social support
Race-based barriers
Science Self-efficacy, Science Identity, Science
Community Values Endorsement
I can be a scientist
I am a scientist
Science is about discovery
Scientific is about new knowledge
Science is about solving world problems
Science is about sharing ideas with colleagues
Race, Racism and Power—focus groups for Higher
Education faculty
Marginalization
Divide between work and home
Historical influence
Don’t fit the norm
Cumulative disadvantage
Intersections of race and power
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 84

Phase Two: Case Study Content Analysis
The purpose of this study was the identification of unmeasured themes to further describe
the experience of minority faculty in academic science fields. In phase one, a search and content
analysis of current instruments used to operationalize minority faculty experience was
completed. In phase two, features from analyzed instruments became a priori criterion for the
document review of three case studies.
This phase explored the listed features of minority faculty experience and identified
emergent themes that had not been described. The search for case studies began during the
instrument search. Two case studies were found using citation searching: When phase two of
this study initiated, a targeted key word search was conducted in ERIC and Education Source.
The search string was: faculty of color experiences “case study”. The date range was limited to
2000-2019, to scholarly journal articles, and “faculty of color” added resulting in 288 articles.
From that 29 case studies were uploaded into Endnote. Exact string: (faculty of color
experiences "case study") AND "faculty of color" with filters scholarly journals and 2000-2019.
Nine articles were considered for the case study review. The reasons for choosing the three
included case studies was explained in each content analysis.
Each of the articles was loaded into Atlas-ti. Phase one themes became groups and
features for each theme were created as codes and assigned to each group. More than one code
was applied to quotations as reflective of the lived experience, descriptions were not discrete but
complex. A single code “emergent” was created to capture new content. Emergent themes from
all three case studies were compared on content and dimensions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
These new themes became the basis for the interview protocol for Phase Three.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 85

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22

Case Study One: On Being Black and a Mathematician

McGee and Martin’s (2011) article was chosen because the author’s stated purpose was
to explore individual meaning making in light of cultural stereotypes and racist beliefs about
Black intelligence and their impact on Black identity, particularly for Black males. The article
also approached the subject through a strengths-based perspective highlighting individual agency
and successes. One of the key features of the literature review and emergent themes from the
review of instruments was the importance and complexity of identity. The review of this case
readied by the exploration of identity measurement and theoretical perspective proved key to
delving into the complexity of lived experience.
In applying features to the case study, eleven themes emerged as dominant (Figure 10)
Figure 10 Case Study One: Data Trends

Emotional response to Stereotype Threat 23
2
Stereotypes
Cultural racism
Response
Effect on well being
Picture of identity 10
0 5 10 15 20 23
Frequency of Codes
Racial identity was a consuming theme within the case study which exposed the richness
and complexity of lived experience. Centrality of race (20) and picture of identity (10) were
both codes which speak to identity. His racial identity was not rooted in Afrocentrism based on
his own remarks to the authors of the case study. Race was central to this young man. Rather

2

2
2
0
0

1 8

1 4

1 4

1 4

1 0

1 0

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 86

they were centered on his being Black and exceling in mathematics. This conflict was central to
his work choices, well-being, and career.
Racism was prevalent in these dominant codes including cultural racism, institutional
racism and effect on well-being. Central to the struggle felt by this young man was the cultural
racism that prevailed. The institution was strong, but this racist judgement of his inability was
extended beyond the institution to the culture and interaction with others.
Within the theme learning environments, his concern was not differences between he and
other students (fitting in or included/excluded) or between he and the institution (values or
receiving support). His primary reaction in this category was the expectations of him because of
his racial identity. He described several responses to that including asking questions of his
mother, manipulating his peers by playing into stereotypes, self-determination to excel, and
desiring to train an all-Black math championship team. Of particular interest was his regret over
the use of joking and playing stupid to manipulate his peers when he was a child and his
determination to succeed as merited as an adult.
His emotional responses were about his reaction to the stereotypes and stigmatized
experiences of being both Black and excelling in mathematics. In the word cloud assembled
from the coding, two words were the largest and same font size: mathematics and Black. The
complexity of his identity was evidenced by his choices. He left an elite school even though he
had grown up in a diverse environment (Blacks and Whites in school together). He completed a
Bachelor’s and three Master’s degrees (two for teaching) and then a Ph.D. in applied
mathematics “just to get it” (p. 14). Then he got a job in a suburban high performing school but
choose to leave to teach in the inner city. His dream (which he barely was hanging onto) was to
lead an all-Black competitive high school math team to the championships and win.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 87

Rob evidenced strength of agency in living his life and exceling in the discipline of
mathematics. It was not just that he wants to do something positive, he wanted to challenge the
norm by supporting, teaching and show-casing Black achievement. His identity was central but
not because he was rooted in Afrocentrism. Rather, his identity was central because the
stereotypes of the U.S. culture stigmatized his identity.
Emergent. Rob was both Black and a mathematician. Actually, he never really used
that word to describe himself. He was smart. He loved math. He got a Ph.D. because math was
fun. He had rejected the well-paying job and consumerism to wrestle with his racial identity by
teaching math to other black students. While this summation was based in the story, it was
centered on the agency of individuals to construct their own meaning. That perspective was not
challenged. However Rob was faced with the very real dilemma--his identity was positioned by
his race and his actions stemmed from his need to break the power of cultural, historical and
institutional racism that hold him and his students. The story was far from resolved. His resolve
was clear--he would not stand as inferior but his stance was also directed at the system that
explained his inferiority in the first place. Race made meaning through stereotypes and stigma.
Case Study Two: Enculturation of Scientists and Engineers
Subramaniam and Wyer (1998) described an NSF sponsored project that aimed at
opening conversations about mentorship across graduate students and faculty in science and
engineering disciplines. The study’s objective was to ”formulat[e] a theoretically informed
exploration of graduate women’s experiences” (p. 13) that would explain their
underrepresentation in the sciences. Authors wanted to explore the climate of graduate training
not as passive (underrepresentation of women) but by describing the ways that women were
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 88

potentially discouraged from continuing through the broader culture of science. The authors also
pointedly sought to change behaviors that were actively discouraging women’s participation.
Over a twelve month period, three small groups (female graduate students, male and
female faculty and female faculty with graduate students) met once a month in a seminar-style.
There were assigned readings and activities/guided discussions planned around topics such as
mentoring, rules of academia, and women roles. The authors served as facilitators of the seminar
project meetings and bridged communication on topics between the groups, enabling anonymity
for the groups but cross-talk on the subjects.
All participants were invited from a broad scope of science and engineering department
and carefully selected and placed to enable free dialog without impact on careers. Two
precautions were taken: within groups, no individuals who had formal administrative roles over
any other participant were permitted; between groups, participants were asked to keep
conversations confidential. Names and departments of other group participants were withheld
from in-group members making both groups blind to the participants in other group. Women
faculty were recruited from universities nearby so they would be free to speak about differences.
In all, participants from three universities were involved in the study.
The analysis of this case study was conducted in the same way that Case Study One
proceeded. The article was uploaded into Atlas-ti and a priori codes (features from the
instrument review) were assigned as the article was digested. The results were strikingly
different. Of the 82 quotations coded, 53 were not assigned an a priori code. The experience
represented emergent themes. Part of this difference was due to the study focus of gender and
the features focused on racialized experiences. However, the emergent data was not about
gender; it was about the culture of academic science and the process of becoming a scientist.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 89

In analysis of a priori codes, seven features of racism were noted even though there was
no explicit focus on race: environmental invalidations, foreigner/not belonging, invisibility,
issues of trust, low achieving, mistreatment, and sexualized. This suggested a potential
intersection of experience for gender and race though they remain distinct in other characteristics
such as criminality and racism. In fact, faculty remarked that “the present problems were
historical” and that everyone needed “a little patience” because there was steady improvement
and “it was just a matter of time” for improvement in faculty student relationships (p.19). There
were also differences in the application of these features. Sexualized refers to a story about a
geological professor who would not consider a female graduate student to take into the field thus
giving access to data and technique to the male graduate student. The authors note that women
were sexualized in this context while men were presumed asexual. A gendered application was
different from the hypersexualized stereotype of one race over another.
In addition, though features from all seven themes were identified, the dominant theme
was socialization including ten of seventeen features including fit norm, historical influence,
marginalization, and race or cultural privilege. One of the exercises in the study that was heavily
coded for socialization features was the prompt for participants in the case study to write the
rules of science. The students readily took too this exercise writing extensively while the male
faculty members argued about what a rule meant and after reluctantly writing down a couple
insisted that they were “choice points” not rules (p. 16). The women’s list illustrated their lack
of fitting in and breaking norms around femininity or emotion particularly crying. One rule was,
“The following emotions, topics, and behaviors are not allowed: crying, insecurity, laughter,
personal problems, complimenting others” (p. 16).
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 90

From the list of a priori codes, features of socialization included descriptions of identity
and science: I am a scientist, I can be a scientist, science is about discovery, new knowledge,
sharing ideas with colleagues, solving world problems. While the features were from
instruments that measured aspects of identity and science, the review of this case study did not
support these statements. In fact, the case study evidence supported the opposite as this example
shows—a female graduate students “slipped into the persona of the serious scientist---one who is
single minded, dedicated, emotionless, well connected, and intellectually curious, the expert
ready to follow in the footsteps of their mentor (p. 16 & 17).
While these examples explain some of the findings from this case study analysis, the
emergent codes deeply examined the meaning of science culture and the experience of
acculturating to it. Applying Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) method of document analysis to all
emergent codes, four themes emerged: characteristics of graduate school, characteristics of
science, socialization and acculturation and finally, norms of the academy. Data from the
identified themes were combined into statements while some quotes were taken from the text.
Codebooks and notes contained the full process of analysis and Appendix C the full list of
statements. Table 13 lists the themes and dimensions.
Table 13
Case Study Two: Emergent Themes and Dimensions

Theme Dimensions
Characteristics of graduate school Graduate school norms
Role of faculty in the science culture
Characteristics of science Science and identity
Culture of science
Socialization and acculturation Norms of acculturation
Norms of training
Norms of the academy What researchers expected
What researchers received
Academic norms
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 91

Emergent data from the study documented the perspectives of graduate students and
faculty in the sciences and engineering and the process of students becoming an expert into those
domains. Graduate school was described as a protégé-master model with power differences
between students and faculty. Descriptions of graduate school included the struggles of
surviving the process resulting both from the challenge of the training and the interpersonal
struggles with faculty mentors. The faculty were reminded of their own struggles through the
graduate students’ stories, but as theme two, characteristics of science, further examined, the role
of faculty in those struggles was heavily contested. Students wanted faculty to intervene by
talking with other faculty members about how they were treating their students. Faculty flatly
refused to act.
While faculty readily agreed that bullying students, sexually harassing them, or abusing
their power over students were undesirable behaviors, they were largely unwilling to
entertain the notion of sanctions. They believed deeply in the individuality of scientists-
one does not interfere with fellow scientists, even if one disapproves (p. 20).
Reoccurring in the discussions, faculty and students in a lab were described by faculty members
as “families” (p. 20). As such, the role of faculty as unquestionable authority in their own lab
was a virtually impenetrable norm.
Also emerging in the data were characteristics of science which explored science and
identity and the culture of science. During the rules exercise, as already described, graduate
students coined the phrase “The Master Culture” to describe a “world of performances, where
they learned to perform a set of behaviors and practices” to be a scientist that would be taken
seriously (p.16). The male faculty members “were surprised and discouraged to learn that
graduate women participants felt deeply constrained by unwritten rules and they maintained that
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 92

they would never as students to comply with such rules” (p.17). Yet graduate women persisted
describing their experiences, the exclusive science focus, and the detachment needed to survive
in scenarios like: “The bully professor,” “The multiple personality disorder professor,” and
“Growing down.” Faculty defended these problems as either beyond their control (they would
never violate another professor’s right to run their lab) or part of necessary “toughening up.” (p.
21-22). About half way through the year, “faculty and graduate participants described
themselves as trapped and powerless in a bad system (institutional and cultural)” (p.17). For
students the system was the faculty; for faculty the system was the institution and policies. The
parties did find some common ground through the facilitation and acknowledge that they each
had power of individual action. But the pressures of acculturation discussed displayed sacrifices
that remained the reality for completing scientific training and becoming a scientist.
Authors Subramaniam & Wyer (1998) described the resistance of the faculty to this
process and thus exposed larger norms of academic fields. The study was set up in a seminar
format where an article was read and discussed to both learn and challenge ideas. This format
was standard in academic training, used across many disciplines. Striking, to the authors, was
the opposition to and challenge of the need to reflect and discuss practices, norms, and
authorities within the disciplines. Academia fundamentally rested on an exchange of information
and open discussion of new and conflicting ideas. However, faculty resisted the discussion
and need for discussion with arguments of methodology, by shifting blame and finally the
freedom of speech—who were they to interfere with a colleague.
The significance of this work as described by the authors, was the voice, duration and
growth of the participants as the study progressed. For this case study analysis this information
stood as a basis of exploration of what science identity means from the inside out. That was
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 93

what do scientists, both as students or professors, saw or understood about being a scientist.
While this study was focused on gendered differences, most of the discussions were about the
practice of science and the training of scientists, not how to train women differently than you
train men. In fact, discussing scientific training at all that was novel to the scientists. This was
such a radical idea and received so much initial resistance that the authors’ descriptions focused
on the handling of the resistance.
Case Study Three: Institutional Recruitment Practices

The theoretical framework of Bourdieu considered individuals as agents who were in
relationship with fields, specifically the academic field and field of power. Gasman, Kim and
Nguyen (2011) investigated the recruitment practices of faculty of color at a highly selective
institution’s school of education to describe what promoted or detracted from the recruiting and
hiring process. This case study was specifically chosen because it focused on university policies
and practices relating to race thus examining the relationship of the field to the individual agent.
To explain why the school of education was chosen, authors noted that students of color enrolled
in education degrees at the highest numbers nationally and faculty were typically high in
minority representation. A review of literature and analysis of institutional data proceeded
interviews conducted with past search committee chairs, administrators and faculty of color
(recently hired). This purposive sample served to target the investigation of recruitment and
hiring practices. A total of 13 individuals participated (committee faculty, 10 plus years; new
faculty hires, 5 or fewer years; 3 administrators) in 60-90 minute interviews. Three potential
participants, all White, senior faculty, declined “noting that they would have nothing to offer on
the topic” (p. 215). The framework for the literature review was framed by Hurtado, Milem,
Clayton-Pedersen and Allen’s (1998) description of institutional climate including influence by
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 94

an institution’s history of inclusion or exclusion, the number of individuals representing
racial/ethnic backgrounds, the climate between groups as psychologically perceived and
described behavior between groups.
In the analysis, the institution and race or racism was at the center the distributed codes.
Figure 11 showed the most frequently assigned codes. Importantly, the institution’s structural
racism was documented most frequently in the top three codes.
Figure 11 Case Study Three: Data Trends

Race or Cultural Privilege 5
Ideology about Race 6
Historical Influence 8
Cultural Racism 10
Race-based Barriers 11
Intersections of Race and Power 16
Institutional Racism 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Frequency of Codes

An example of institutional racism was the lack of formalized institutional policies
governing hiring new faculty. The interviews revealed the presence of an “affirmative action
officer” (p. 216) to check applicant pools. One of the administrators interviewed stated,
We [the school of education] don’t have any formal rule in place in terms of search
committee composition and diversity. However, we do have an informal rule—no
committees are made up of three people and we never have three White men on a
committee (p. 216).
Policies were part of institutions, so why was this policy absent? The awareness of cultural
racism was evidenced in the informal rule that three White males were unable to form a
committee, but the institution’s response was racialized and complicit.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 95

Trending institutional level comments must be contextualized by individual level
responses. In addition to the seven most frequently applied codes, thirty additional codes were
assigned linking individual’s responses with cultural racism and demonstrating an intersection of
power and race-based barriers. One of the interviewees, a White female, was a former
department chair and search committee chair who commented this about diversity, “Diversity is
like apple pie; most people would find it hard to say no to. However, there are some people who
might say it’s a bigger priority to have eminent scholars on our faculty” (p. 216). The
assumption that diverse candidates and eminent scholars were two separate categories
demonstrated the a priori criteria of the historical influence of race, its cumulative disadvantage,
expectations of racial identity, cultural racism, the intersection of race and power, race-based
barriers, and race or cultural privilege.
Individual’s responses in the interviews continued to demonstrate cultural racism that
show an intersection of power and race-based barriers. Authors write,
Many faculty members thought that obtaining a diverse pool of candidates was basically
a ‘crapshoot’….Several faculty members considered the diversity of the pool as mere
happenstance—based on candidates’ personal preferences, such as the geographic
location of the institution. For example, a White male full professor noted, “It’s a lot
easier to recruit a Latino faculty member to Arizona or Texas than here….I’d say the
same thing about Native American scholars. [Recruitment success] depends on what part
of the country their group came from originally” (p. 217).
These sentences were replete with examples of racialized assumptions made based on non-White
racial identity. Arguments of racial representation or critical mass offered by writers noted that
these attitudes hinder the possibility of hiring faculty of color. However, these attitudes were not
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 96

passive in this engagement rather evidence of a racialized field bolstered with cultural racial
assumptions and expectations, pictures of identity seen through historical influence, and race-
based barriers created by the privilege of one race’s positional power and another’s cultural
exclusion. These comments were emergent extensions seen by applying a relational analysis.
Emergent codes (15 total) extended identified topics similarly to the analysis of Case
Study One. For example, having no formalized policies for the department but having only
informal rules indicated a resistance to policies in deference to freedom. The link between
individual’s explanations of race-based situations consistently reflected historical separations or
stereotypes. As individuals were translating institutional priorities, such as the considering
eminent scholars, the link between the dominant cultural narrative, through the field of power
and academia to the individual was easily drawn. Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and practice
offered an explanation for how these cultural discriminations translate into habitual actions and
explanations.
As a final note, this study referenced issues of hire by the term faculty of color but the
interpretation of this term evidenced differing levels of resistance to support across participants.
Some of the participants, generally older and White, spoke of diversity in broad terms including
ideas and research even refusing to use the term. Three potential participants indicated they had
nothing to add to the discussion which was in effect a dismissal of the topic. The term also
garnished a narrowed reaction becoming synonymous with African American as opposed to
White, while omitting all other backgrounds. In addition, several faculty members disagreed
with the university’s definition of minority insisting that internationally born faculty should be
included. The Dean of the school connected diversity with social justice noting that having a
diverse student body and an all-White faculty was “just not right” (p. 218). Not only was this
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 97

confusing, but it speaks to the levels of discomfort and mental diversions culturally sanctioned to
fend off discussion of historic racism and its effect on the academic field.
Summary

In examining three case studies to further explore the minority faculty experience, several
key concepts rose to the surface. Racial identity meaning-making and domain was intensely
intertwined. Measuring the individual experience of challenging stereotypic norms and stigmas
culturally assigned required a deepening understanding of individuals facing this challenge and
examination of systems that supported the historical meaning of identities. Central to this
challenge was the habitus (internalizing the dominant narrative and externalizing it through
practice) of persons in positions of power and institutional systems upholding meanings of race
through practice. The field of academic science was revealed well beyond the scope of a priori
criteria. The norms of graduate training, faculty practice, science culture and academia remained
uncharted from the perspective and experience of minority faculty. Finally, institutional action
through policy as enacted by individuals in positions of power described areas of practice that
reflected a deep racial narrative. In all, the case studies exposed gaps in description of individual
faculty experience, academic life, and institutional practice to be further explored through
interviews and beyond.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 98

Phase Three: Interviews

In alignment with the purpose of this study, interviews were used to determine the extent
that emergent themes derived from phase one and two were confirmed by participants. This
application of theoretical sampling maximized concept development by facilitating the
identification of relationships and variations across the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The interviewees were from a national sample (not clustered in a single area) and
expressed very different stories while sharing common themes. Two had backgrounds in Earth
sciences, one in biological science, and one in applied chemistry. One of the participants had
been “aggressively applying” to two year colleges for a full-time teaching position. Another
described two labs during graduate school that were led by an international advisor and staffed
with international students. A different respondent described working on diversity issues during
graduate school training. And the final interviewee attended undergraduate and graduate school
in” a land grant, majority white” university. Each of these differences in experience affected
their reflection and perspective of the topics in the interviews. The differences in the
interviewees accentuated the root commonalities across their experiences.
This section was organized into four sections: stereotypes and meaning-making,
institutional positioning, norms, and affective response. Within each of these themes, data from
the transcribed interviews represented each participant’s voice to show emergent patterns.
Stereotypes and Meaning-Making

The interview protocol did not specifically ask individuals about stereotypes or their
meaning; the theme emerged from the individual’s preference of terms used in the literature to
describe underrepresented minority faculty (Table 14). The answers below lacked consistency
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 99

Table 14

Preferred Language for Underrepresented Minority

Term Disliked Term Ok Preferred
Diverse 1 3
Minority 3 1
Faculty of Color 2 2
Historically Underrepresented 2 2
URM 1 3
Affirmative Action 2 1 1
Inclusive 1 3

so the interview focused on understanding why the choices were made to prefer or dislike a
particular term. Individuals offered multiple explanations. Participant 4 (P4) disliked the term
faculty of color but was ok with underrepresented minority stating, “For me, the faulty of color
almost makes it sound like I’m not as good as white faculty” while
underrepresented minority is based on, ‘Oh I’m (race)’. Or, you know, like—my race.
Whereas that faculty of color it almost feels like the bar is lowered for me, if that makes
sense….I feel less judged with underrepresented minority than I do feel it with the term
faculty of color.
Participant 3 (P3) echoed this perspective stating, “faculty of color denotes one singularity or
not—you’re not white, you’re of color and so I think that’s too focused.” The meaning of this
term shifted if another minority used it.
[Participant 3] like[d] the term diverse and historically underrepresented because it
encompasses more than just race for me. Cause anyone who has not been represented in
fields of science or so that can be women. It can be gender related or race related or
ethnicity related. It can be—I think you can use those terms and apply it to your situation
and I think more people fit into those versus the terms on the other side. (P3)
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 100

Participant 2 chose differently from this list preferring diversity, inclusion, and faculty of color.

And I feel in the biggest of the second group of words you said [minority, historically
underrepresented, URM, affirmative action], for some reason, like the word minority to
me and I think this is a more recent thing. It feels like we’ll never be part of the group
when you say the minority…and like we’re never part of the larger conversation….I
think just—I’m just okay being a person of color.
While these three participants showed preference for one term over the others, Participant 1
marked all as positive.
Yes. I see all those terms positive things and I'm happy when they're being used and
when those subjects are being spoken to. As far as which one is -- I took it as which do I
see in positive light. So that's why I didn't pick one over another one.
As the conversation progressed about the terms, P1 was asked specifically about affirmative
action and this was the response.
So when I was an undergrad, affirmative action was an active policy that was being used
when selecting undergraduates. And so when I went in I saw affirmative action as a
positive thing but yes, I know that other classmates were using that as kind of a
derogatory term. Oh, you were an affirmative action not candidate, they accepted you for
affirmative action, kind of like lesser than. They just assumed that if you were non-white
then --- oh well you got in because of affirmative action. So then later when I graduated
then also that idea of other folks using affirmative action in the negative context. So I
thought it was a good thing but I was aware that other people were using it to justify not
hiring minorities. Or that when they were hired that they were not as good as other
people.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 101

What was regarded by P1 as a positive term had been adapted by others to indicate a negative
cultural stereotype. This discovery in my first interview prompted further exploration in the
following interviews and each interviewee confirmed the progression. “I have heard from non-
underrepresented minorities, oh you got that scholarship because of affirmative action….it kind
of downplays my talent and my drive and what I’ve accomplished” (P4). P3 also admitted
Affirmative action to me—I would tell you it’s not always been a negative term for me. I
have a brother who also has an education—he is an Ed.D. He climbed up from math
teacher and now is superintendent of schools. At one point he’d gotten his first principal
position. One of the first teachers he met in school said to him “I heard about you; you’re
the affirmative action hire”…and I had a definition in my head at what affirmative action
meant, but that’s the first time I had heard it used in a derogatory sense.
P2’s viewed affirmative action as policy. “I think when I hear the word affirmative action, I
think because of that we are now able to be in places….But because there’s a policy in place,
now we can do so.” When asked whether others had attached negative overtones to the word, P2
responded, “I think because some groups may feel like they’re not getting into something—so I
would say non-people of color may think that they’re not getting something because of
affirmative action.”
From these discussions and interactions, two ideas emerged. First, the words were not
key to understanding the participants choices rather the meanings-making prompted by the words
provide the link. The negative terms were associated with negative cultural stereotypes about
separation from the group, inferiority while compared to the group, and judgement received from
the group. Second, the term affirmative action which denoted a policy of access (P2), was
superseded by the negative cultural stereotype to mean any achievements made were minimized
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 102

because of racial status. For this group, the words were not essential and differed from person to
person; the realization that stereotypes explicitly defined the meaning-making that participants
connected to their racial group emerged as a significant finding.
Pressure of stereotypes. Included in the interview protocol was a vignette summarized
from the reviewed case study describing the experience of Rob, a black man who loved
mathematics (McGee, 2011). Rob’s identity was central to the story because the stereotypes of
the US culture had stigmatized his identity. Participants were asked to rate the frequency of this
situation on a scale of 0-10 from never to all the time (range 6-8, mean 7.25, mode 8). The
participants all identified with the story of Rob and talked of his experience as typical. When
asked about their experience they all told stories about the impact of the stereotype.
Participant 2 expressed directly “I guess I said an 8 because the stereotypes are like
(pause) you can’t be, you can’t be good at that.” P2 continued observing that Rob needed to do
to be seen similar to the experience where
I felt like I wasn’t being noticed when I was doing good work, so I, to like show my
faculty even more that ‘Hey. I’m here and I’m doing this and I can be just as good as
anybody else’ I felt like I had to take on more responsibility even in order to be seen in
that way.
Participant 1 expressed that the experience goes “back to that stereotype of not being able to
perform. Yes, you’re a Ph.D. but you’re never going to be able to perform at the level of a non-
minority.” P1 went on to describe the internal struggle
For me the thing that always happened in the back of my head…[was]I would be terrified
or completely ashamed if someone asked me a question related to…peripherally in
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 103

biology and I didn’t have an answer to…like I would feel ashamed because if was like,
and my head would immediately go to, ‘Crap. I’m a fraud and these people are
immediately thinking it’s because you’re a minority’.
Participant 3 explained the pressure as “it’s automatically my role to say how we can get more
(race) interested in this degree or this society.” Not only was there the pressure of “representing
your race but also being an advocate for your race, for fixing all the diversity problems in your
institution or your society or whoever you’re working with.”
Culture’s stereotype did not just come from the dominant people group. They came from
family. Participant 4 shared
I feel that if you're that one person in your family that's made it out that's gotten that
college degree much less even higher more advanced degree that you're always
explaining that you're not different. You're always getting oh, you're not (race) or you
don't act (race). Well not every (race) person can do what you do or --- so there's this
sense of while you're trying to accomplish things for yourself you also feel like you have
to accomplish things for your race.
For P1 this pressure to succeed was not limited to interactions with non-minorities or colleagues

[as] I kind of feel like I’m always being, even though that is probably self-perceived,
even in my daily interaction, even with other minority folks, particularly with my family
and friends, I always feel like I have to be on. I can’t never know the answer to
something cause then it’s like all that time you spent in school was a waste. (P1)
For Participant 3 the stereotype was different, but the pressure still came from within the family.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 104

I think for ethnic minorities, in particular ones that are underrepresented in the STEM
fields, I think those people tend to fight where they belong as they go along, and as they
proceed…as seen like with (professional minority organization) meetings and all of a
sudden you’re thrown in with people who are very similar to you, who are on this path
but you can relate to them on these other frameworks because you have very similar
backgrounds. Like family interactions where family are asking why you’re not married
or don’t have kids and don’t ask you a single thing about what you’re doing
professionally at all. It doesn’t matter to them because you’re not fulfilling the
requirement of the family. (P3)
Awareness of stereotypes. For each of the participants, awareness of difference
happened uniquely. For Participant 2, the family was where the feeling of difference originated.
I would actually say it was more in extended family dynamics when people started saying
why are you trying to be like the white people…by excelling? … People started to make
statements in that way and I would like, ‘Why would they be thinking that I’m this way?’
And so that was the initial though on my brain that I am (race) but I’m trying to be
something different.
Having been homeschooled, Participant 4 became aware of being different. There was no
specific incident or time, but there was a recognition of being different
Always being the weird (gender) within my family, within my circle of friends and things
like that. ‘Well you talk differently from everyone else that live around here.’ And it
wasn’t—I wasn’t trying to talk differently. I looked at different things. I watched
different types of movies and documentaries and things and I picked up on that.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 105

For Participant 1, experience with school and peers created an awareness of difference starting in
junior high when numbers of minority students started to dwindle in honors classes. Peers
Even folks in my own racial group [asked] ‘Why do you like that? Why are you such a
nerd? Why do you read so much? Part of it has been also that self-awareness …I was
like one of two minority, non-Asian, non-white minority students. And then by my
senior year, I was just hyper aware.
Participant 1 continued by recalling an equipment manager for a sport in which he/she
participated called him/her a racial slur and that “an experience…with [a] Spanish teacher just
really put in stark relief that I should not be there” and “there were people in the world that
actually were threatened or didn’t want me in their environment.” Participant 3 shared the story
growing up in a predominantly white, rural community.
Yes, I would tell you early on in my early education and early life, I was around a
majority of white people. And there were derogatory statements said all the time and
they were said in front on me and it was said --- and I didn't say anything. And it was
said --- they didn't even think about me being in the room or the place but I obviously
was from other groups and so it shocked me that they would say it and I didn't know what
to say in turn.
P3 continued noting that this happened a lot when he/she was a child and was growing up
making him/her not wanting to stand out but just “do all the normal things that normal people
were doing.”
Management of stereotypes. Just as Rob had strategies to deal with the stereotype and
stigma he/she experienced, so the participants in this research also made choices. Part 2 did
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 106

more; Part 3 blended in; Part 1 internalized it; Part 4 leveraged it. But for them all, there were
costs.
Participant 2, who realized in college “in order…to start to do as well as everybody
else…I just had to do more” encountered the internal struggle of identity that was initiated
through family comments about being “like white people…by excelling.” This pull between the
attachment to a certain meaning of race “started at least in my brain…someone thinking that I
was trying to be something different and that kind of getting entwined in your head and whole”
created a “very internal struggle.”
P3, the undergraduate experience “was a big steady stream of not feeling like anyone
else” but the challenge of “as soon as you start down those same paths—like similar courses and
similar obstacles and difficulties—you somewhat have to choose to start to belong to the group
so that you start to have a core group of people.” This coping strategy of finding a group where
one fit in was learned from his/her grandparents who “stopped speaking their native language
cause it was not acceptable to do so at that time.” P3 noted “I think that’s what happens when
you have to come up in the culture that you’re in. You’ve just got to figure out to how to make
things work for yourself.” Yet this management left him/her with “that internal struggle that
continues to go on. It's going on with me right now.”
P1 expressed the fear of not being able to perform at a level that was expected and
compensated by “always feel[ing] like I have to be on.” At the same time she/he excelled all
through school and said, “so, I have a PhD in the sciences and so that's --- I feel pretty good
about that.” But this constant need to excel “at every moment” to avoid casting a negative
image on a racial group, created an intense load of mental pressure. “Even if these folks weren't
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 107

asking with that intent to test my knowledge, …me not being able to give them a good answer
about this that would just stew in my head.”
P4 acknowledged the realities of racial stereotypes and the courage to discuss race even
in the context of the negative stereotypes of achievement and place.
There have been times where it’s been brought up to my face that I got where I am
because I’m (race). And this kind of hint as though you’re really not qualified for this.
And I will leverage my under minority status. And I have leveraged to get things, receive
leadership positions and the like. Cause I think that I can bargain with it.…while some
people tend to want me to want me to feel bad that I’m an underrepresented minority, I
think I should be proud that I’m an underrepresented minority and I’ve gotten to where
I’ve gotten. And so I don’t mind shoving it into your face saying, ‘I deserve this and I’m
worthy of this despite my underrepresented status.’
The power of this coping strategy was evident from the words and the straight forward nature of
the statement. Individuals within STEM fields leverage grants, collaborations, papers, and P4
leveraged her/his racial status. Relating to the awareness of difference, P4 stated,
When you’re a kid, if you’re weird you weird like whatever. Whereas when you’re older
you have that period where anything that you feel is not of the norm or not like the people
around you’re going to try to hide. And where you’re much older, I think your 30’s and
40’s you get to the point where you just don’t care…If you don’t like me, don’t be around
me.
Perhaps this was an expression of the resolution of meaning-making regarding a racial
stereotype—a willingness to let go of others while embracing pride in one’s racial identity.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 108

The response from each participant is unique but the reality of the stereotype and its
stigma within the dominant cultural narrative was shared. This one of the most significant
findings in a cultural system that was trying to state that they were over the problem of racial
prejudice and no longer needed structural supports to deal with the history of the nation.
Summary. The meaning-making of racial stereotypes established the connection
between the culture’s view of different races and the experience of the individual. That history-
laden meaning came from external sources or family sources and was not limited to a specific
point in development. The application of dominant cultural racialized stereotypes by the
dominate culture was sometimes used to deflect responsibility for the negative meaning-making
to the minority population. Rather, it was evidence of the ubiquitous power of the dominant
narrative’s stereotypes to first define place and then pressure individuals to remain in their place.
Regardless of the source or timeline of the experience, the struggle that results was internal—
“what are you going to do when you get done here? Where should you work for personal
fulfillment versus where should you work so that you make sure you’re giving back and
honoring how you got here” (P3).
The purpose of this study was the identification of unmeasured themes to further describe
the experience of minority faculty in academic science fields. Phase one of this research
identified existing instruments and emerging gaps and themes relating to stereotype threat,
stigma consciousness, and identity theory. Phase two showed that racial meaning-making
identity and domain can be intensely intertwined. Phase three confirmed that the individual
experience of challenging stereotypic norms and stigmas culturally assigned was deeply
individual. The differences between the four participants were connected by the powerful
narrative of the cultural stereotype showing the importance of further investigation in
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 109

understanding how these externally originated messages impact individual’s meaning-making of
themselves and their responses within their field. Specifically, the question of this research was
to understand how a racialized identity, which all participants were describing in different ways,
operationalized within the norms of academic science.
Norms of Academic Science

The norms section of the interview was a series of statements which asked respondents to
weigh in on a Likert scale of 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The averages for each
statement were listed in Table 15. In the interview, the discussion evolved around the
participant’s responses to these norms and the discussion clarified statements. Wording and the
challenge of agreeing or disagreeing with a negative statement confounded these statements
Table 15

Survey and Interview Results for Academic Science Norms

Norm Reported Mean
1. Science is acultural (not determined by or relating to any culture). 1.5*
2. Power preserves science culture. 4.0
3. The uncomfortable, like race, cannot be discussed. 3.25
4. The value of individual choice shields science culture from change. 3.25
5. The freedom of the advisor to govern is intractable. 3.75
6. Graduate school is an acculturation process. 3.75
7. Giving students help is a sign that you are lowering standards. 1.25*
8. To be a serious scientist means you are dedicated to research and
emotionless.
1.0*
9. Group norms prohibit reflection on practice, impact or consequences. 3.75
10. Status hierarchy is deeply embedded in academic practices. 5.0
* Denote reverse construction of norm items

prompting recommended edits: (2) Power structures preserve science culture; (3) You can have
conversations about race, but people are uncomfortable with them; (5) The advisor has freedom
to govern graduate students however he/she sees fit; and (9) Group norms keep academic science
practices from changing. Discussions with respondents confirmed they interpreted the
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 110

statements as intended, so no changes were needed to their scoring. Of interest, there were two
statements of complete agreement. Norm (8) showed strong disagreement with the description
of serious science as both dedicated and emotionless. Norm (10) showed strong agreement with
a status hierarchy being deeply embedded in academic practices. Status hierarchy became a
cross cutting theme across the discussions and was frequently paired with power.
After the initial coding of the interviews, two themes regarding norms emerged.

Participants’ remarks either looked back to graduate school or to the present and forward to their
faculty careers. These different perspectives form the foundation for understanding how norms
operationalized for historically underrepresented faculty in the sciences (Table 16).
Table 16

Themes Operationalizing STEM Norms for URM Early Career Faculty

Norms in STEM Graduate School Norms in STEM Faculty Careers
Acculturation process Norms for acceptable science
Role of the Student Status hierarchy
Power of the Advisor Role of Power
Impact of Race Impact of Race

Selection criteria for this study specified that faculty were required to have four or fewer years of
experience. This criterion could have skewed the relevance of the graduate school experience.
Also, the norm statements were based on a case study with both graduate student and faculty
participants. Therefore, two statements directly asked about graduate school. While the focus of
this work was post graduate school, the activity of graduate school was training a scientist and
therefore relevant to understanding the norms of academic science careers. A discussion of these
themes as reflected through shared experiences in the interviews further elucidates the phase two
emergent themes of academic science culture.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 111

Norms in STEM Graduate School

The two norms that directly inquired about graduate school asked about the process of
graduate school as acculturation and the advisor’s governance of the lab. In the interviews
graduate school was also included in discussions of group norms, race, status hierarchy, science
being related to culture, and power within practices. The following individual descriptions built
themes across the acculturation process, the role of the student and the power of the advisor.
Acculturation Process. This investigation probed the experience of now Ph.D.s to
understand their perspective on the process of becoming a scientist. The exploration of
individuals who had succeeded in achieving the degree may lead to a better understanding of
what that process requires as well as providing a basis for future research on normalizable
differences for URM and White students.
Participants spoke of graduate school in two ways: the way they wished it would have
been and the way it was. Participant 3 stated
I think grad school is supposed to be a training for grad students to learn more about their
research and their field and then to actually apply it…But I—there sure isn’t a lot of
freedom in grad school to explore and do exactly what I mentioned…and this is probably
the result of graduate education programs and as much in funding, too.
P3 continued acknowledging that the current arrangement had both positives and negatives
noting that you get into training and there may be a little bit of freedom. The challenge was that
One size fits all and if you fit into that, yea, I think if you fit into it, it’s fine. If you fit
part of yourself in it, then you try to do some other things, I think it’s okay. It sure
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 112

eliminates people who don’t—that’s why I’m disappointed with graduate school because
I think it sure eliminates some people who have somewhat of that investigative nature in
them if they can’t fit into that one size. It sure eliminates them fast.
Participant 4 reiterated this when speaking to differences in advisor mentorship training

There’s been a real drive for mentorship and training for both the PI and the student on
what’s really supposed to happen for graduate students or post docs and how you’re
suppose to help them and what are best practices and what are things not to do.
P4 did expressed the negatives of graduate school as a “high stress situation and I think all the
time” where “everybody’s working hard” and “even if you’re more inclined toward science and
research, it still fails 90% of the time.” While Participant 2 described the graduate experience as
atypical because of a dual role as a student and a leader in a diversity initiative, the respondent
did note that “opportunities and the experiences you have are based off of your advisor.” P2 also
advocated for “training and thinking about hot wo endeavor the inclusion and how to support
[graduate] students” noting that would make for “better experiences for graduate students
coming out.” Coming back to Participant 2, who expressed as the one thing to be changed was
More flexibility within science and that includes graduate education and what scientists
do.…I just think we’re losing a lot of people who don’t fit into this…you know, this box
to do science. And I just wish that would change. There’s some things we could do with
science to get more people in it who would then drive the difference that science needs to
be.
These comments summarized the response of participants to the question “graduate school is an
acculturation process.” The next section considers the role of the student within this frame.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 113

Role of the Graduate Student. This theme uncovered salient details about the graduate
experience. Participant 1 described the awareness of the graduate experience as the
Need to get with the program as soon as possible if you want to succeed. If you want to
get those publications in the top tier journals who are going to get you into that really
high-level post doc, that then is going to get you into that top school that you want to get
to. Yeah. It’s a molding process. If you don’t conform, you don’t adhere, you better be
one-in-a-million hot shot to have a shot.
This description of the graduate student pathway forward was one of progression—training,
papers, post-doc, job—and illustrated the reason for acculturating to it. Those who refuse to
conform must be a beyond exceptional. The role of the graduate student was to conform and
appropriately progress. P1 continued
If [graduate students] can’t hack it, or rather if they’re struggling, then they see it as a
sign of weakness…and only those that are truly deserving and that are truly going to
make or rather that they perceive as those that are going to make this big contribution to
science and those are the ones that should not get filtered out. They should be allowed to
proceed.
Weakness during the process of acculturation, according to P1, set a person up to be “flushed
out.” Participant 4 described the challenges of graduate school in detail
Graduate school is just so different from—especially in the sciences…from anything
you’ve ever really been exposed to even if you’ve done research in undergraduate….You
don’t have time for yourself. You recognize, I think, very clearly your failures and then
if you’re doing like basic science, your failures are in your face like every day….It’s very
frustrating. You learn a whole different language. I think even parts of you have to
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 114

change because you have to come up with some kind of way to cope with the constant
disappointment. And to rejoice when you do succeed at something and no let that joy be
for that five minutes that the experiment worked. But you have to hold onto that joy
when your next project, experiment doesn’t work.
This described experience mixed the role of the graduate student with the acculturation process.
It was described as an acculturation to failing. In fact, P4 said, “I don’t know if it’s good or bad,
but I think, it just has to happen.” From these descriptions, the role of the student was to
conform and survive the experience of failing while training, having no time, and completing a
competitive process to get to the top journals, post-doctoral training, and academic positions.
Power of the Advisor. In the midst of this very difficult process was described an
additional challenging feature—the role of the student’s advisor who was the principal
investigator (PI) in the scientific lab where the student was training. When Participant 1 was
asked about the advisor’s freedom over the lab was intractable, the response was definitive.
Yeah. And that’s definitely part of it because it blows my mind how much control a PI
has over the life and future of the graduate students….And that combined with just the
lack of oversight by the department. You are completely—if you’re lucky and end up
with someone that’s not a control freak, you feel like, ‘Oh, I’m not being pushed to the
very limit of what I can tolerate.’ You feel lucky. Because at the time it’s just
completely hands off, you have people that are flushing out of the program, minority and
non-minority. And the departments just don’t seem to care. Oh, well, it’s the professor’s
responsibility.
Participant 2, whose role was split between graduate school and diversity initiatives, also
acknowledged that so much of what happens to the graduate student was governed by the
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 115

advisor. Participant 4 described two separate rotations into two different labs in hers/his
graduate school. The first was a lab led by an international PI who would begin to speak in
English and then switch to his native language.
And even though I’m saying ‘I don’t understand what’s going on and I need help’ I didn’t
get that. He never really addressed that. And so because he was cool with it, then
everyone else in the lab felt like this is cool, we’ll work with it.
The rotation in that lab only lasted four weeks. The second example Participant 4 described was
In another lab with an international professor…he didn’t do the whole like speaking in
[another language] thing. But he was very—his idea of motivation was to tell you that
you were stupid and worthless and you were never going to get your degree and he had
these crazy rules like you had to be in the lab before he got in in the morning. So he
would stop by the lab on the way to the office to make sure everyone was there. And you
couldn’t leave the lab until he left in the evening. So he would stop by again as he was
leaving his office to make sure everyone was there. He would come in on Friday at 6 pm
and say, ‘I want this on my desk by Monday morning’ knowing full well that the only
way you could do that is that you didn’t leave until midnight on Friday and you worked
all day Saturday and Sunday. And everyone disagreed with it. Said it was horrible. No
one liked it, but because that was his rule, we’re not going to say anything to him. He’s
given us a job. He’s letting us do this and we’re going to keep working and just pretty
much ignore the fact that he’s using us as slave labor and not rewarding us or treating us
well or even being appreciative of the work and the effort that we’re doing, putting aside
our families and our responsibilities and all this other stuff.
And if students break under these kind of circumstances, P1 outlined the potential reaction
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 116

Many professors function as though they are working with robots and if those robots
break that means some sort of emotional crisis or struggling with a particular project.
Then, it’s like that machine is broken. I need to immediately get rid of it and find me
another one that is not going to break.
P4 acknowledged that prior to the last 20 years or so, there was no mentorship or training about
how to best support graduate students to success or what not to do as a mentor and faculty were
participating. But the older way of managing students “You like put them under your thumb and
force them into collecting data and crack that whip” was regarded by many of the senior
professors as the respected way to handle graduate student not this ”hand holding and
mollycoddling” that new faculty are doing. P1 wrapped up these ideas stating
And again, it’s just, I feel like we have—we’re missing an opportunity to bring in
different perspectives. Different ways of approaching and answer and just because
someone is having a problem, just because someone is having an issue, that they can’t be
successful or contribute or just make the department or field better just by being there.
Impact of Race. The role of the student in an acculturation process dependent on the
power of the advisor had been described as challenging. Specific issues of race for graduate
students in these situations were not as well discussed as race at the level of the faculty or
academic career. As graduate school was only a portion of the focus of this interview, race was
primarily discussed at the faculty level. However, there were links to race integrated by
participants in their descriptions.
For Participant 4, “some PIs are going to be more in favor of people who share the same
ethnic and racial background as themselves” while others were more focused on the work getting
done and “you do good work and that’s all they really care about.” Participant 1 prefaced
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 117

remarks about getting with the program with the statement “even though you’re not told you
don’t belong here” which revealed the feeling that race, or what race meant, mattered. All four
participants explained that they were aware of their racial status and the cultural stereotypes and
negative stigmas associated with them prior to attending graduate school. P4 acknowledged,
“You’re much more aware of how your differences can make you stick out.” Participant 3
described the changes in science that were happening as
More and more voices of URMs are slowly shaping science to not just look through one
lens, but that there’s multiple lenses out there. There’s room for everyone here. And
maybe, there’s not one right way of looking at the research or looking at the data or
making an interpretation. I think that’s where we’re headed.
P3 continued to note that “for ethnic minority, in particular ones that are underrepresented in the
STEM fields…tend to fight where they belong as they go along.” Along that journey they
encountered questions from family and internal struggles about why they were there and what
they were trying to do. P3 acknowledged that
That kind of stuff is constant and I’m sure everyone who, regardless, seems to go through
it. It just seems to be a more prevalent problem for people who are underrepresented in
this field.
Participant 2 who spoke little of graduate school experience acknowledged of Rob’s story (in the
interview protocol) that
I think that he was trying to get around that by doing more and I feel that we try to—and
I’m saying we as in people of color—we try to overly do. It’s like you have to do even
more to just meet the minimum….I can’t just do the bare minimum. I have to go above
and beyond to still just be seen like everybody else.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 118

Race, though not specifically queried directly, was part of the conversation. As P3 stated, “I
think we need to talk about race all the time.”
Norms in STEM Faculty Careers

The transition for graduate student to faculty was individual, and the participants in this
study were evidence of this. Only one was a full-time faculty. Another was negotiating a full-
time position. Two were currently part-time faculty members seeking a full-time position and
one participant was a post-doc looking for a faculty appointment. The focus of this research
study was on this time of early career as there was a great deal of pressure and transition. This
study sought to understand the experience of early career underrepresented minority STEM
faculty and in the interviews to confirm the emergent themes of phase one and two. The case
study by Subramaniam and Wyer (1998) described an NSF sponsored project that aimed at
opening conversations about mentorship across graduate students and faculty in science and
engineering disciplines. The emergent themes from this study formed the basis of the norms
listed in the survey and interview protocol. Four themes emerged from the interviews: norms
for acceptable science, status hierarchy, role of power and impact of race.
Norms for Acceptable Science. The term “acceptable science” was coined by
Participant 2 responding to the norm—science is acultural (not determined by or relating to any
culture). Participant 2 was very thoughtful and deliberate thinking through this stating
That science is acultural meaning that science does not, not have a culture and I said I
disagreed with that. What I was thinking was that the way that we do science—Native
Americans do science in a certain way that is very different than what we do for Western
science….And it does, they don’t fit together, right?...So that’s why I was thinking that it
must be connected with a culture of some sort….but I don’t think that it should be. I
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 119

think we should do science the way we’re going to do it without fitting into a certain
system….I think it’s hard to take out a cultural piece now that I’m talking about this
because you work on something based off of what you know….The reason I am saying
this is because some scientists don’t look at what Native Americans do as being science.
And their ways of knowing….And it’s not acceptable science quote unquote.
The process of seeing the culture of science or the perspective of how science was influenced by
culture, specifically Western science was also reinforced by Participant 3.
I think science right now, traditional science, is very much reflective of a dominate, white
culture…it’s not very representative of different cultures other than the European culture.
And there’s actually scientists who take great pride in the science method, is the science
method and because the way it is, regardless of who does it, you’ll come out with the
same results. And those results will be profound and true regardless of who does it. And
I think that’s a lot of hoo-ha.
Participant 4 also weighed in on the discussion

I felt that’s kind of hard to answer, cause I feel like in the purest form, if you look at
science, yes, it’s acultural. It’s just science. But if you think about the people that are
doing science then there’s culture related to that. How I look at a problem when
investigating a problem or even thinking of a problem to investigate, is going to be based
off of my cultural experience. My approach to my experimentation is based off my
cultural experience…So while the actual science itself may not have a cultural
component, how it was carried out, how it was represented, how it’s interpreted will all
be through the cultural lens of whoever’s doing the science.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 120

Participant 1 also connected conducting science to culture, norms and race

First of all, just either from the department or just as a field, I feel there’s certain accepted
norms and they’re specific to the science. Just like adhering to the scientific method, you
know different approaches to a question, but at the same time it’s also heavily influenced
by folks in power, right? So whatever their norms are, particularly if they’re non-
minority or actually you would say it was minority (of scientists).
P1 linked the practice of science to the power of scientists in addition to a cultural system. This
link would be further explored in the themes of status hierarchy and the role of power, but for
now, the next norm that was reflected in the faculty experience was the way research was
conducted. Participant 3 reacted to the norm that to be a serious scientist meant you were
dedicated to research and emotionless by saying, “I think emotionless science would be
extremely boring, and I wouldn’t be doing it if I were emotionless.” P3 spoke to the underlying
norm in his/her continued comments, “people pride themselves on this impersonal, white lab
coat science that just drives forward for the truth, but I just don’t think that’s the way science
should be done.” Participant 2 reiterated “I think that you can be dedicated to research but also
have emotions.” Participant 4 responded to this in the context of more senior faculty who
weren’t emotionless, but did “put research before everything else.”
I’ve been around older faculty that will complain about their either junior faculty or post
docs if they have a kid, saying like, you’re risking your career having a kid. You’d be so
much further along if you hadn’t popped out those babies.
Participant 1 indicated that this norm of dedication to science and emotionless was “just
ingrained in the culture of science.”
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 121

Another norm that quickly followed this discussion was that giving students help was a
sign that you are lowering standards. All four participants strongly disagreed with this statement.
Participant 1invoked her/his experience working with community college students.
If these students were to be given admission, they would be looked down upon as well,
‘They needed help at some point so they weren’t good enough. Why are they here?’
Whereas I look at it from [a different angle]. High C students that do need help, but just
need that little bit of push that are just dealing with something. You know, even a time
management skill. They just need this one little push and they’re—it’s like they have this
untapped potential, right?
P1 continued challenging the norm that the highest academic scoring students were the best.

One of the norms in science, and I’m sure this is across all academia, is that students with
the best grades, the students that score the highest on the standardized test, the students
that come from the best schools, these are the type of students we want. And that these
are the only metrics to predict or rather to judge the quality student….I’d like for the
folks that are admitting students either at the graduate level when professors are looking
at potential applicants, that they take a more holistic view of the student. Maybe not so
much on the grades, maybe not so much on the school that they came from, but rater
what are the challenges that these students have had to overcome just to get there? And
even though they may show up needing a little bit of help, with a little bit of investments
from either the school or from the professors, that everybody’s going to benefit by having
that student, that type of student there.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 122

In summary, P1 wanted the recognition in the scientific community “that it takes a lot of
resilience just to show up.” Participant 3 strongly reacted to the norm that by offering help you
were lowering standards.
That-drives-me-nuts! I think scientists get into these silos, and they forget…they forget
how they got there. It blows me away that people think by offering advice or modeling—
I often model or give you some guidelines…that’s not lowering standards….It drives me
nuts when people muck around with standards like that. Just because I’ve explained to
you what I’m asking or how things work, doesn’t mean the standards are lowered. It just
means you have now more knowledge to work with to meet the standards.
Participant 4 felt that the same senior faculty who thought mentorship and training of graduate
students was “hand holding and mollycoddling” would also agree with the statement that helping
students was lowering standards. Participant 2 followed a train of thought on this topic, “I don’t
think by helping students, you’re lowering standards….I think that other people would perceive
that but in my own opinion, I don’t think that’s true.” When asked who those other people
would be, P2 replied, “I would say those are that people that don’t ‘buy in.’ They don’t get it;
they don’t get the conversation yet.”
Status Hierarchy. Just as all four participants strongly disagreed with the statement that
by helping students you were lowering standards, all four participants strongly agreed that status
hierarchy was deeply embedded in academic science. While the terms older faculty, top level, or
well-connected were all used by participants to describe what status hierarchy meant, the
example given by Participant 2 of a review that was just returned, pictured the concept.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 123

I’ve got reviews that recently [returned] and it was like, ‘Well, [P2] is still at this stage in
a career’ is what it said. But because this [other] person is on it, then we probably should
think it’s okay. It was like using this other person as backing for me. So, they like this
person, so they know that it’s either going to be this way or that way…And they may say
whatever negative thing they want to say about me, but then this other person is okay.
The merit of the scientific idea was not judged. What was judged was the status of the person
submitting and the person named. Since the person named was highly regarded to maintain the
direction, the person submitting was permitted to be early in a science career. Participant 2 was
allowable based on the status of the other scientist. In other words, “The peer review
process…benefits some people more than other people” (P2). Participant 1 described another
peer review process
Again like status is a current thing, right? And whether you’re getting for a tenure track
research position or whether you are submitting a paper for publication….One of the first
things they look at is where, typically from the US, what institution in the US…I have a
good friend from..[State College] doing amazing [discipline] research. But his paper gets
shied at because he’s at a [State College]….An again it all goes back to status.
Status also signaled that a person was able to dictate norms. In this way, status hierarchy linked
to the value of individual choice to shield science culture from change. Participant 1 explained it
this way, “Those norms, then—whoever’s at the top, right? Sets the norms that everybody will
have to follow, right? Sets the rules, let’s say—these are the things that I need to do.” When
describing helping students, Participant 2 acknowledged that some people don’t “buy in” or that
change was slow was because individuals can “put up road blocks” if they were not interested in
change “because those are the groups who have been the more privileged groups anyway.”
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 124

When describing the diversity initiatives at the university, Participant 2 described the
intention set by the team to make a difference. A counter example demonstrated the importance
of a group’s goals to benefit themselves. “So that goes back to the whole individual. What is
good for us versus thinking about the larger group.” Continuing the discussion about status and
individual choice, Participant 2 cited that while Western science was an individual work Native
American science “was community” (P2). About the status of individuals, P4 noted
I think just even as a faculty member there’s just—even if you don’t agree with a certain
person, because of their position, you’re going to agree with them, because [if you don’t]
your life will be miserable and you’ll never get anything done and you probably won’t
get your contract renewed.
In this comment, Participant 4 linked status hierarchy of individuals who choose to change or
adapt to differences to the exercise of power in academia.
Role of Power. Status hierarchy indicated an ability to impact the decisions of others in
a passive way, as the review examples described. It was used actively as an exercise of power.
To continue with P4’s comments, “I know people who upset the wrong professor or did
something, and maybe that professor wasn’t a supervisor but the professor was well connected in
that institution, and so their life thereafter in that institution was miserable.”
Power was the cyclical pattern that maintains the status of some or the way to attain
status. Participant 1 explained the pathway to status and power
So status hierarchy is essentially whoever has power—the folks at the top….Because if
you look at the folks that are the super well-funded research institutions, highly selective
and what not, they come from a very small number of schools like Harvard. And so it
becomes cyclical that these folks then are hired by folks that came from similar
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 125

institutions that have a similar outlook on science. But then, also, their ideal candidate
behaves and looks like them so when people that were hired then reach [high status] we
can replace the folks that hired them. Then it perpetuates. It keeps going round and
round and round.
As described, the norms of those with high status were reinforced by those who follow after from
the same places with “one set of lens” (P4). As Participant 2 observed, sometimes roadblocks
were set up by those “who just really don’t want to see” that “we can do our best work if we
have people that are just not like us because they’re bringing in different ideas and experiences.”
Participant 3 shared a more indirect way that power preserved the culture of science and
perpetuated the way science was done.
Power in science culture is the traditional path or the traditional way you view science.
So for me it’s coming up against, this is the way we’ve done this forever, for years. Get
on this path and do it this way, otherwise your science is not going to be accepted and/or
you won’t go any further, you can’t talk about it. You’ve got to follow. I’m trying to
think of an example of this. Well right now I’m struggling with it too. So my science—
the niche I’m trying to make for myself as a scientist is really to do science that has a
direct link to solving problems or helping people. So one of the things I struggle with—
so that means your science comes from working with communities or people or different
organizations that have a problem and you want to help them solve it and you believe
your science can do that. And that’s not typically the way science is done. But the norm
is that you come in and you’ve got a handle on it and you’ve got these big questions and
these big questions will help you—you know regardless of what you’re problems are. ‘I
have these much bigger science questions that are so much more important.’ And so
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 126

where I’m struggling at is—where I fit in and where I think I want to do science at and
what the traditional way to do science is. I have had a lot of scientists say to me, ‘Oh, my
gosh. I’m really ticked off—my grant application says my science has to have an
application—has to actually help someone or work with people.’ I’m in focus that that’s
where my science has to go. And to me, that’s the way science should work. (laughter)
I get the other science for the sake of science, but there’s always more to learn, and
there’s always more we can learn. But I also think science has an obligation to help
people otherwise we’re not going to create any more scientists, if we can’t link what we
do to actual people in solving problems. So, that’s what I guess is my struggle with what
the traditional power of science is in someone’s view and where my science is.
This quotation demonstrated that the power of science norms and status hierarchy was
experienced by an individual. It also described that funders were pressing scientists to think in
the way that P3 was thinking by requiring connections to application. Yet the testimony of P3
shows the resistance not only to the “niche I’m trying to make for myself” but also to the
demands of the funder. The power of the norms, the individual, and status were linked.
Impact of Race. As this analysis integrated race in the experience of historically
underrepresented faculty in STEM fields, two realities seemed to emerge from the conversations:
an understanding of the long standing problem and a hope for change.
Participant 3 taught undergraduates “teaching them how to read and write at a college
level.” The class was reading a book on the Rodney King riots in LA and the instructors had
training on how to handle discussions on race.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 127

I had a really good group of students and things went really pretty well. And then we
diverted off and started talking about [race] because that’s the largest ethnic group in
[State] and then some old stereotypes came up and the conversation just changed….We
could talk about race on a really collegial kind of understanding level when it was
African Americans in LA but as soon as we stepped back into our context…these old
judgements came out.
Participant 1 also spoke of the efforts to diversify and the realities of race across the academy

So I think at the community college level…there seems to be more of a celebration of
diversity and an openness to diversity. At least that’s been my experience at the CC
level. As you start working your way up to four year, say college to university, and
especially the more exclusive they get, it almost seems like the schools go out of their
way to say, ‘Yeah we think diversity is ok.’ But to go at the really high top tier research
schools, they also want to go out of their way in the opposite direct to say everything’s
meritocracy, right? ..Some is—like minority or underrepresented or a female transgender
then that’s just coincidence. We hire only the best. I want to say that on paper it is, the
more selective universities, on paper they do take a neutral stance…And so, that’d be
great if—all these biases are ingrained in the culture of these institutions…it’s baked in.
Participant 4 offered the hope that “we’re getting more and more voices of URMs that are slowly
shaping science not to just look through one lens but that there’s multiple lenses out there.
There’s room for everyone….I think that’s where we’re headed.” And Participant 2 if able to
change anything about the problem, just wanted to “understand people that don’t get it.”
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 128

[The people] that don’t understand the value and experiences of like all individuals—like
why? It’s like we can do our best work if we have people that are just not like us because
they’re bringing in differing ideas and experiences. So for the people who set up these
roadblocks and who just really don’t want to see that, I don’t—like having a better
understanding why. Then on the other side of the cycle that is a small number of people
so why don’t you just really engage the people who are excited and really get this.
Participant 2, with a job in the works in the administration working on broad diversity initiatives,
may get the opportunity to just engage those who “buy in.”
Institutional Commitments and Recruitment

The questions about institutional recruitment asked respondents to indicate their
institution’s practices (Table 17). In the interview, as the discussion with one participant evolved
Table 17
Survey and Interview Results for Institutional Recruitment of URM Faculty

Recruitment Strategy Used
1. University administration formal directives
2. University administration informal directives 2
3. Dean formal directives 1
4. Dean informal directives 1
5. Department formal directives
6. Department informal directives 2
7. Search committee composition formally requiring diverse composition 1
8. Search committee composition informally requiring diverse composition 1
9. Targeted promotion of new faculty appointment
10. Networking with potential candidates 1
11. Persistent follow up with potential candidates
12. On-campus networking with current minority faculty 1
13. Informal support for recruitment initiatives among current faculty
14. No know systemic process for hiring candidates 2
15. Recruitment and hiring process left to the committee’s discretion 1
around legal recruitment strategies, the use of formal directives was clarified to mean written
rather than understood. Overall the data indicated a minimal use of formal directives as well as
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 129

informal directives to seek diverse candidates for faculty positions within the different
institutions (2 year, four year, public). The overall results showed a limited use of possible
strategies to recruit URM faculty. Data was contextualized by the positions of the participants
within these colleges and universities as part-time faculty or post-docs who were not involved in
the actual recruitment of new candidates. However, data also indicated that these colleges or
universities were not recruiting from existing part-time faculty or post-doc pools. This strategy
was not included in the list, but was recommended by Participant 1.
Interviews with participants each had a very unique direction. As such, this section
reports that data by participant. Because of this focus, the specific context of the work done by
these participants will be generalized to preserve their anonymity.
Participant 3. Much of the conversation with P3 centered on the gender and racial
composition of the specific group. The immediate department had a female lead with ten
additional (three women) senior team members, four (one woman) junior members, and eight
(six women) new members. The racial diversity was located primarily in the new members of
the team with only one underrepresented minority at the senior level. P3 recommended formal
directives by the institution to be “well explained and written out.” In addition, for the upper
management “the writing and the importance of it has to come out of their mouth.”
Participant 2. In the interview P2’s comments reflected the siloed nature of institutions.

The specific group that P2 participated in valued diversity initiatives and were “really excited
and engaged to have more diverse faculty.” But in separate units across the overall group, “it’s
not a high goal.” P2 also participated in a networking across the institution that included various
disciplines and types of employees. When P2 showed up, the others attending the event were
surprised at his/her attendance. “So, you know, it’s like a weird disconnect of not feeling like
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 130

you belong with people who are in different areas than you.” P2 reported that the event was
“very shocking to me” and “it put up another roadblock.”
As an additional aspect of the conversation, P2 pointed out the reason that there was
excitement to diversify faculty was the understood connection between a diverse faculty and a
diverse student body. P2’s specific group understood that “having more [both women and
people of color] faculty in those positions helps attract more students.” Whereas the overall
group “want[s] to have diverse students but they don’t understand the connections of having
diverse faculty which helps attract diverse students and have a culture that is acceptable to retain
both the students and the faculty.” The closing comment on this subject reinforced this point,
“so we really need to work on fixing the cultures of certain [groups] first, and then it’s a place
more opening and welcoming to have more diverse students in that manner.”
Participant 1. The focus of P1’s remarks was the process of recruitment across
institutions. These remarks were not limited to a specific institution, but looked at an
opportunity in the academic field to make a change. P1 felt that the process of the application
was overall fair but acknowledged that initiating that “the first time I was like just terrified by it.”
The lack of aggressive recruitment across institutions seemed to be “a function of just the
teaching job market. It’s very competitive because there are just too many people trying to
apply.” P1 did challenge the institutions that were “truly serious” about “the faculty makeup
resembling the student population, then at that point, they need to do a better job of reaching out
to qualified candidates.” The specific suggestion for recruitment centered at the Dean level and
focused on faculty already associated at institution that were not full-time. “Let’s say the Dean
reached out to one of my colleagues or actually a handful and said, ‘Hey, you folks are…good
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 131

candidates. Apply.’…If they just had a little push from the leadership immediately above them,
they would persist.”
Participant 4. P4 noted that diversity seemed to just happen at the institution because of
geographic location. The individuals, who were employed there, lived in the area which had a
concentration of specific diverse groups. So the institution was “doing good in terms of getting
diversity and keeping URMs. It’s kind of all lumped together…at [percentage]. But not looking
further and seeing what that [percentage] really means.” As the institution has no known
systematic recruitment, the administrators might not even be aware of this problem.
Participant Affect

Within the survey, a question was added after the story of Rob to ask how participants
felt. Participants responded with honesty and openness. Participant 1 simply stated
I’m frustrated. It makes me really frustrated. Again, it’s just because as an instructor and
now I see my work as an advocate for my students. And compared to their experience, I
had it easy. I was able to be a full-time student and had two parents that were supportive
of everything that I was pursuing. I didn’t have kids. I wasn’t working to support my
family. So, I see so much potential in my students. And it’s frustrating to know that
they’re going to be facing not only hurdles that they’re only dealing with, but all of these
misperceptions and biases, you know, getting to that next step.
Participant 2 expressed reality but mixed with encouragement.

I think about this a lot already that I feel like it sucks. But I think, I guess I’m excited
that at least just having this conversation with you that people are able to express their
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 132

experiences in a way. And I feel like, obviously, there’s still a lot of work that needs to
be done, but I am encouraged that people are really starting to see the light in it all.
Participant 4 summed her/his response with this remark. “I think I should be proud that I’m an
underrepresented minority and I’ve gotten to where I’ve gotten.” For Participant 3
Yeah, that’s a good question. Because I’m really struggling internally where to find my
path in science and one day it’s one place and one day it’s the other. And so—and I
would tell you over the last five or six years, I can feel some of my passion has subsided
and has left. And I feel like I’m in this rut that has been grooved for me by lots of
different people, and I just got in it, to try to get through.
Summary

The three phases of this research documented emergent themes across the experience of
minority faculty in academic science fields. The final output of these linked phases were
recommendations in Chapter V of themes to inform future research.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 133

Chapter V: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to operationalize the experience of minority faculty in
academic science fields by the identification of unmeasured themes. The study adopted a
sequential, exploratory design (Figure 2) to investigate in three phases currently known aspects
of the URM faculty experience and identify gaps. The theoretical framework (Figure 1) of
Bourdieu’s (1990, 1996, 1999) field, capital and habitus was contextualized in socio-historical
definitions of race and individual meaning-making, then applied to investigations of stereotype
threat, identity, and socialization, and operationalized as a review taxonomy (Table 1).
Principles of constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) were applied to the linked
phases of research in a study design to triangulate findings. The final output of these linked
phases was described themes to inform future research.
Phase One Findings

The first phase of the study was a review of instruments (Table 11) that have been used to
operationalize the experience of underrepresented minorities. The review revealed seven
themes—faculty experiences, stereotype threat, learning environments, racial identity, the role of
affect, racism, and socialization—and scales were analyzed based on a developed three-point
taxonomy of population, scale and research perspective. Population analysis showed that faculty
experiences were not the basis of most scale development. Scale criterion were also heavily
quantitative or theoretically derived. The gap in critical voice (using a critical frame, multi-
methods or deriving items from qualitative analysis) created a need for operationalizing items
from the investigation of experience. Finally, the criterion of research perspectives showed an
overwhelming etic perspective which may hide the voice of minorities through masking their
experience in dominant descriptions. Overall, the scales provided features (Table 12) that could
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 134

be used to both confirm and extend topics and the analysis showed a gap in current investigations
into the experience of underrepresented faculty, particularly in STEM fields.
Phase Two Findings

Phase two used identified features from the scales for a technical review of three case
studies to further explore the minority faculty experience. The cases were chosen to understand
concepts of race and norms in academic science fields. Several key concepts rose to the surface.
The first case study by McGee and Martin (20110 described racial identity and domain as
intensely intertwined with meaning-making and racial stereotypes. The next case study
(Subramaniam & Wyer, 1998) described the experience of women in science and engineering
graduate school. From the analysis (Table 13) emerged a gap between what was being measured
and the lived experience of graduate students. As an example, scales items such as, “I am a
scientist” or “Science is about new knowledge” (Estrada, et al., 2011) were challenged with
descriptions of required emotionlessness and stories of entrenched in hierarchy. From the
Subramaniam and Wyer (1998) case study, themes emerged questioning norms of graduate
training, faculty practice, and academic science culture. Finally, in case study three, the
recruitment practices of an elite institution were studied in the context of power and practice
(Gasman, et al., 2011). A list of recruitment practices to hire diverse faculty emerged. In all, the
case studies exposed gaps in description of individual faculty experience of identity, academic
science culture, and institutional recruitment practice.
Discussion of Phase Three Findings

The survey instrument and interview protocol were designed to further explore emergent
themes from all three case study reviews. Findings in phase three linked the emergent themes
from the previous phases to the theoretical framework through the lived experience of the
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 135

participants. Strands from the literature review were used to contextualize findings in this
discussion and to generate constructs for further investigation.
Stereotypes and Stigma Affect URM STEM Faculty Experience at Institutions

This study explored the experiences of underrepresented faculty within the context of the
historical and social definitions of race. Definitions of race were visually characterized and
explicitly defined by stereotypes. Individuals made meaning regarding racial group identity
from the stereotypes, their stigma, and the individual’s experiences. These stereotypes, derived
from cultural definitions of race, included affirmative action admission, inferior academic
abilities, and not being appropriate for intellectually challenging disciplines, have been found to
persist into current times (McGee, 2016). To describe the experience of minority faculty in
academic science fields, this study analyzed identified instruments (Table 11) and case studies to
identify previously studied themes and emergent themes. Racial meaning-making under the
influence of historical constructions of visual race revealed a complexity of experience.
Significance of Stereotypes as Stigma. Interviews confirmed the persistence of
stereotypes and the stigma that can affect individuals. Emergent from the interviews was the role
that language played in reinforcing the stereotypes and stigma. Through rating terms used to
describe faculty composition (diverse, minority, faculty of color, historically underrepresented,
URM, affirmative action, and inclusive) participants revealed that the underlying reality of the
words was the stereotype and its stigma within the dominant cultural. All participants rated the
terms differently (prefer, dislike, no preference), but their reasons for ranking one term more
disliked or preferred were the same—it was less stigmatizing, marginalizing, and judgmental.
What best illustrated this phenomenon was the term affirmative action which all respondents
described as positive even though their rankings of the term were different. The negative
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 136

stereotype had re-defined it. As affirmative action was a structural change imposed by the US
federal government to provide economic, educational, and political access, findings suggested
that the power of the dominant racial narrative was to define the action through the negative
stereotype. Therefore, the structural action designed to reverse white racial dominance and
segregation was re-defined to mean inferiority, undeserving favor, and unjust interference. The
participants’ meaning-making was influenced by this racialized definition.
Race Meaning-making and Institutions. Institutions reacted slowly to affirmative
action which was quickly replaced by consideration of diversity resulting in a proliferation of
definitions (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). Discussions of race meaning-making rooted in systemic
racism and structural inequities were overall lost (Davis, 2016). In alignment with those
assertions, participants revealed little evidence of recruitment activity at their respective
institutions. None of the participants in this study were currently working at elite or highly
selective institutions. Two were at research intensive, public universities. Participants did not
offer an explanation for this lack of action, and it was possible that these individuals were not
aware of the institution’s diversity initiatives. However, as minority faculty in STEM disciplines
at colleges and universities, the irony of an institution overlooking URM faculty presented a gap
between the argument for lack of supply and the universities’ lack of action.
Theoretical Framework for Institutions. Emirbayer and Johnson (2008) described a
relational frame that interacts with the social structures in which organizational fields, such as
academic institutions, were embedded. That meant that the institutions were positioned within
the political field, the economic field, and the field of power. Capital was identified based on
field analysis that maps relationships between organizations that were dominating or being
dominated. Those institutions that dominated the power struggle across the field set the capital.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 137

They also maintain capital—federal and private research dollars, endowments, highly published
and awarded faculty, and top-scoring student—that provides them the highest status (Craig &
Lombardi, 2013). As diversity has not historical grounded in the values of the institutions rather
their capital was built on historical exclusion, the highest ranking institutions were de-
incentivized to add it to their values (Davies & Milian, 2016). Other institutions may be
competing by adding diversity as a way to create a niche that gives them in an advantage in the
contestation of power. But if the elite institutions espouse diversity, there may be a reaction to
follow or to differentiate to gain position within the group. Thus, the institution became a
meaning-making agent defining diversity separately from history facilitating endless
disaggregation of difference while maintaining the position as definer (Swartz, 2009).
Implicit Norms of Academic Science Influence Practice and Training

Institutions were endowed with the role of training the elite and perpetuating the cultural
norms presumed to be superior (Parsons, 1951). Schein (2006) tested organizational and
occupational culture finding that occupations requiring a long apprenticeship pressure individual
cultural values to align with the values of the profession. Because the participants in this study
had completed their advanced degree, each had a unique position to inform this research about
the norms of academic science and their enforcement. Items discussed in the interview looked
backward to graduate school and forward to the professorate. In this way participants were
reflecting on both training and practice norms.
Norms for Training. Only two statements directly addressed the graduate student
experience: graduate school is an acculturation process and the freedom of the advisor to govern
the lab is intractable. As expected, the individual experiences of the participants varied, but they
all observed the control, lack of freedom, and power of governance that advisors had over
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 138

students. The two strongest comments were the comparison to slave labor with no gratitude or
appreciation for personal sacrifices being made and the metaphor of students with problems
being broken robots that simply needed to be gotten rid of and replaced. Other participants
described the role the governing authority of the advisor to determine the quality of the student
experience or the approach that the student took. What was clear was that the role of the
graduate school was to acculturate the student and the role of the student was to conform. The
power of the advisor to determine the experience of that process was virtually unquestionable.
Theories of socialization and practice. Gopaul (2011) proposed the theories of Bourdieu
(1990, 1996, 1999) be used as a conceptual frame for understanding the socialization process of
graduate students seeking a doctoral degree. Differing from Antony (2002) who stated that
socialization can complete without personal identification, Gopaul suggested that the final stage
of identification indicated that the professional identity was integrated into the view of self.
Applying the Bourdieuaian (1990, 1996, 1999) theory to the findings of this study,
participants were describing field, capital and habitus through practice. “Practice is a fluid
concept as the interplay among habitus, field, and capital [that] change[s] over time and
influence[s] action in different capacities” (Bourdieu, 1984, p.16). Thus, students might
experience doctoral training through various relationships between the various theorized
elements. The structures of the power in the organization determine the forms of capital and
“specific” habitus within that organization (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 29). This field-based
relationship demonstrates both organizational reproduction from individual action, how
organization change takes place, and the individual’s role in that change or production.
Participant response. Participants suggested the importance of these norms and the
position of the advisor to regulate access to opportunities and control the graduate student
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 139

experience. As an agent of power, the faculty advisor applied the norms of the discipline and the
academy to the experience of graduate student. Participants acquired the capital of a Ph.D. in
their respective disciplines. Participants managed the socialization experience by finding a
group, leveraging underrepresented status for opportunities, hanging on to joy to cope with
failure, and the cumulative effect of repetition to build confidence. Participants described the
power of the faculty advisor and the process of acculturation but did their practice demonstrate
internalization of the “specific” habitus of the profession?
Norms for Practice. The participants in this study were actively serving as faculty in
STEM fields. Therefore, the norms of the academic science field were understood not only
through training but also through practice. Implicit norms of practice identified in the this
student included: Science is acultural (not determined by or relating to any culture); Power
preserves science culture, The value of individual choice shields science culture from change;
Giving students help is a sign that you were lowering standards; To be a serious scientist means
you were dedicated to research and emotionless; Group norms prohibit reflection on practice,
impact or consequences; and Status hierarchy is deeply embedded in academic practices.
Interviews responses varied based on experience, but overall themes were supported.
The norms of acceptable science practice were paired with the cultural perspective of science.
One participant kept returning to the judgement of Native American science as not science at all.
Another repeatedly mentioned that the way of science was practiced individually, separated from
people and without application, was not in alignment with the way science should be practiced as
a community and addressing real issues. These represented cultural perspectives and a rejection
of the idea that science could be practiced outside the bounds of a cultural perspective. Funders,
too, pressured norms of acceptable science. Participants described the resentment by researchers
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 140

when funder required science to relate to future applications. The role of the funder as a pressure
on the norms of acceptable science and the cultural perspective of science was shown but not
further explored or well understood.
The participants also rejected the practice of science as a white lab coat scientist that was
emotionless and dedicated only to research while acknowledging that individuals within the
scientific community practiced science in this way. But the norm that got the largest emotional
response was the norm that giving help to students was a sign that of lowering standards. The
opposition to this was unanimous. Again, participants acknowledged that some scientists would
agree that support was a lowering of standards.
Impact of status on norms. With so much opposition to these norms, the participants
were not free of them. If the norm of the science culture included the freedom of the individual,
then why were participants not free to practice their values as acceptable science? The chief
theme that emerged from analysis was that status hierarchy was deeply embedded in academic
practices. Status within the hierarchy meant power through attainment of the top level in the
program—the top grades, the top schools, the top journals, the top placements—as described by
Participant 1. Those at the top rungs of status could enforce the norms as was indicated by
Participant 2 whose paper was accepted due to the name of a leader in the field while the
participant’s status was simultaneously degraded. Power within the status hierarchy meant one
could choose to change, adapt or listen. The traditional path (Participant 3)—that was the norms
of acceptable science—were upheld by individuals with high status in a hierarchical system.
Theoretical framing. Digesting these findings within the framework of Bourdieu, the
structure of the field and the value of capital were expressed at the related action between agents
forming a dialectic relationship. So, norms or rules of social interaction were also a function of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 141

this interactional ground. Bourdieu (1999) describes rules or norms in terms of habitus. He
stated, what was defined as rules were “the relation between habitus, as a socially constituted
system of cognitive and motivating structures, and the socially structured situation in which the
agents’ interests were defined, and with them the objective functions and subjective motivations
of their practices” (p. 76). From this description, rules were never more than a secondary
principle of the determination of practices” (p. 76). Bourdieu continued to explain that symbolic
stimulations (actions, capital, objects, etc.) were understood through conditioning. They were
not questioned but received as objects already endowed with purpose.
Participants’ perceptions of the stated norms were all influenced by the knowledge of
place, perception and behavior within the larger field of academic science. Though the
expressions were not all the same, the pressure of the norms on their practice within their specific
circumstances was validated. The field-based practice of implicit norms through the
organizations and the science field demonstrated a dialectic relationship between the specific
habitus of the organization and the individual’s role within that change or production. Unlike the
conditioning that Bourdieu proposed, the participants actively questioned the norms or secondary
principles of practice they had learned. The participants were free to act personally but knew
that the practice of academic science had different implicit norms. This knowledge created
dissonance and affect for the individual agents.
URM Faculty Identity Pressures Implicit Norms

The research questions of this study centered on the experience of underrepresented
faculty in science fields and what aspects of that experience were measured, what new themes
might emerge and what themes would be validated. To this point, findings focused on the
institution’s policies and procedures and the training and practice of individuals within academic
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 142

science. But how did race and the individual intersect in response? Through the lens of a
dialectic relationship between participant and the organization as field coupled with the power of
the faculty advisor, this study suggested that while racialized identities felt the pressure of the
implicit norms, these individuals, also, exerted pressure on the academic science field.
Identity and Academic Science Norms. The two norms with the strongest agreement
by participants were: status hierarchy is deeply embedded in academic practices and giving
students help is a sign that you were lowering standards. Participants discussed the stereotype of
needing help or coming through a community college as an indication that one was not the best
or needed to be “flushed out” (Participant 1). The discussion of stereotypes and stigma revealed
that these stereotypes of low academic achievement were based on race. Affirmative action
shifted from a positive policy that opened doors previously blocked to a stigma co-opted by the
negative stereotype of White intellectual superiority and natural achievement. Leslie and
colleagues (2015) studied cultural stereotypes, brilliance beliefs and race and found evidence that
that race was a predictor of field diversity. Griffin, Gibbs, Bennett, Staples and Robinson (2015)
found that women of color experienced increased scrutiny of their intelligence, even accusations
of cheating, marginalization, tokenization (diversity hire, representing their entire race), and
were judged in ability before even able to prove their performance. Participant 4 acknowledged
the impact of racial stereotypes, but also the possibility of individuals respecting good work.
The interviews linked racial stereotypes to participant struggles of race and identity.

Identity theory, which sought to understand how people make meaning, was complex and
cross-disciplinary. Sociology, psychology and anthropology each tackled the issue from
different perspectives. Social-psychological perspectives saw identity as stable across situations
(Crocker & Quinn, 2004). Structural theories view it as an interaction between the role-based
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 143

self and society where the self was a reflection of the society so was multifaceted, organized and
constructed (Stryker, 1980, 1987). Social identity theories emerged from the interaction of
psychology and society and were psychological (Turner & Reynolds, 2004). Social identity
theory (SIT) was focused on large-scale categories (race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.) to
understand intergroup behavior and the cognitive process of the individual (Worchel &
Countant, 2004). Self-categorization theory (SCT) focused on the cognitive process of
categorizing identity (Turner & Reynolds, 2004). The theory of intersectionality was rooted the
lived experience of individuals disrupting the multiple socially constructed identities (Crenshaw,
1991).
The participants in this study expressed their identity in ways that push these theoretical
perspectives. They rejected the stereotyped racial identities while not rejecting their race. They
each acknowledged their place as a scientist in the academic science field but made room for
personal goals that may be disruptive to implicit academic science norms (teaching with clear
expectations, supporting investment in students, community-based researching, and increasing
buy-in for diverse faculty). Each of the participants exhibit characteristics of Carlone and
Johnson’s (2007) science identities as a research scientist (traditional career as a researcher;
traditional definition of scientist; recognition from scientific community), altruistic scientist
(health practitioners; redefined scientist to tie to giving back; recognition from similar peers or
recipients) and disrupted scientists (dissatisfied but not derailed; individual definition of
scientists; sought recognition but was disrupted). While the meaning of race was determined by
historical construction and defined the individual’s group, the effect on the individual exposed an
intersection of science identity and racial identity and an unwillingness to relinquish either
identity.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 144

Participants Pressuring Implicit Norms. The only norm to directly address race was
the uncomfortable, like race, cannot be discussed. The initial scores on this statement were
scattered, but then clarified. Race was an uncomfortable topic, but it needs to be discussed and it
needed to be discussed more often. Participants acknowledged that academic science fields were
changing, in part because of the inclusion of underrepresented minorities within the field.
More and more voices of URMs are slowly shaping science to not just look through one
lens, but that there’s multiple lenses out there. There’s room for everyone here. And
maybe, there’s not one right way of looking at the research or looking at the data or
making an interpretation. I think that’s where we’re headed (Participant 3).
The roadblocks related to the traditional path of “white lab coat science that just drives forward
for the truth” (Participant 3) and those who “don’t get it” (Participant 2), were not the only forces
acting within academic science fields. As with the participants in McGee and Martin’s (2011)
study of URM agency in academic fields, these participants were pushing back. Participant 1
saw the role of instructor as an “advocate for my students.” Participant 2 quipped “but now I get
the [administrator’s] ear, so I think so. I’ve had it for a while, but even more so.” Participant 4
leveraged status as a URM to gain leadership and recognition, all needed within the academic
science field. By accumulating capital within the system and utilizing connections to ranking
individuals within the status hierarchy, the participants were exerting pressure on the implicit
academic science norms.
Theoretical framing. To understand the relationship of this pressure by participants to
the implicit norms of academic science fields, the theory of organizations-as-fields by Emirbayer
and Johnson’s (2008) was applied. “If the organization-as-field [was] the site of conflict over the
legitimate principle of domination, then how do organizational members choose position in these
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 145

conflicts?” (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 26). Similar to organizational fields, organizations-
as-field had both objective positions and spaces of position takings where the space of positions
(intra-organizational entities) and a space of position-takings (the meaning or cultural structure
on the part of the intra-organizational entities) could be analyzed (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008,
p. 26). Formal rules, such as status hierarchy, and habitus governed position-takings practice.
Both provide information about who people were within the organization and the favored
position people wanted to take. The power advantage to define capital and norms within the
system goes to those who possess the status.
The Importance of Affect. Participants described the pressure of norms and the push
back again those norms. They also recognized that their racial identity changed their positioning
in academic science fields. It gave them a particular perspective on student struggles (helping),
most predictive characteristics (what students already overcame), power within the system
(leveraging race), the view of science as a cultural expression (Native American science), the
acceptable ways that science could be conducted (traditional path), the main purpose of diversity
(varying perspectives), and the main goal of science (solving real problems). And this
perspective came with an emotional response. When concluding this discussion of norms,
power, status hierarchy and race with individuals in the interviews, they were asked how they
felt. Participant 1 was frustrated as an advocate, frustrated knowing the challenges that lay ahead
for students. Participant 2 noted that these realities “suck” but at the same time was excited for
conversations with receptive individuals about race. Participant 4 expressed pride in
accomplishments and racial identity. Participant 3 was struggling to find the find a way out of
“this rut that has been grooved for me by lots of different people, and I just got in it, to try to get
through.” Instruments that measured affect spanned stereotype threat, commitment to
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 146

occupations, and aspects of organizational identity. But the emotional response to stereotypes
and how it affected career choice by historically underrepresented faculty in academic science
fields was not adequately understood and presented an opportunity for further investigation.
Emergent Themes

From the participant’s experience as historically underrepresented minority in STEM
seven emergent themes were discovered. The first construct emerged from the tension between
participant’s identity as a scientist and their racial identity.
• Resistant Identity—an identity that maintained both a racial identity and science
identity (both explicit and implicit norms) with tensions between enforcing norms
and transforming norms
Participants described experiences in science that grounded the following implicit norms within
academic science. These descriptions were made in the context of historic underrepresentation
in the science.
• External Commitment—science practiced in the context of people, problems,
and communities with tensions between science community driven practice,
project/question driven practice, and community driven practice
• Supportive Orientation—science identity that valued development of and
intervening support for students/learners with tensions between solitary survival
and community support
• Cultural Openness—science practice that welcomed diverse approaches and
thinking to scientific questions, experimentation, and application with tensions
between strict traditional adherence and flexible positioning
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 147

• Political Lens—science identity that sought to balance being true to one’s
personal values and commitments while respectful of one’s professional science
values and commitments with tensions between power and purpose
• Confrontation Willingness—science practice that viewed instruction as content
driven and learners as respected participants with tension between confrontation
avoidance and peer intervention
• Affective Recovery—science identity that recognized the personal cost of
challenging identity norms with possible productivity affects that included
tension between withdraw and engagement
Limitations and Future Recommendations

While this study identified emergent data, there were limitations to the findings. None of
the participants were in tenure track positions. Their experiences were outside the faculty
governance mechanisms of universities and therefore limited in their participation in the
academic institution. Also, only one participant was currently a full-time faculty member. This
could skew the data to the perceptions of graduate school experience instead of a faculty focus.
One of the participants had worked in diversity initiatives throughout graduate school, and this
familiarity with objectives and strategies could have biased remarks. To further this study, a
robust sampling method that would include full-time faculty members, both tenured and non-
tenured, as well as part-time faculty would add to the depth and breadth of findings.
Additionally, qualitative data was not generalizable and limited to the specific context.

The initial phases of this qualitative research depended on previously researched data in
published form. The review of this research might have been misinterpreted or used in ways not
consistent with the researcher or the participants in the research. Using a semi-structured
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 148

interview developed through this research could have propagated these errors into the interview
stage and limited the discussion with participants to unintended findings.
Finally, the small sample size of four significantly limited the range of responses and the
breadth of possible experiences. Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball
sampling methods which might have supported self-selection bias. Participants who were hyper-
aware or motivated by particular experiences might have been more likely to participate.
Implications for Practice

The findings of this research supported the presence of challenges for URM faculty in
academic science fields. Overall, this research demonstrated the embedded presence and impact
of race as a reality for underrepresented faculty. These findings had implications for policy and
practice. First, institutions needed to formalize the value of racial difference. This could be
done through formalized strategies for seeking, hiring and supporting minority faculty in
academic science fields. This included distributed plans for action and measurements of
accountability. Participants suggested recruiting from part-time faculty already working for the
institution and fielding support networks across the institution for minority faculty members.
The methods of this research suggested that institutions should approach race
conversations from a “bottoms up” approach aligning with the communities they serve rather
than dictating the agenda. Completing a needs analysis or climate survey to guide capacity
building across faculty, staff and students would root change in evidence.
Findings emphasized the internal resistance of some scientists to funding requirements
and the overall role of funders to drive research directions. Understanding the roles played by
funders would be key to preparing current and future faculty to navigate new horizons of
funding. It would also position scientists and institutions to weigh in on future directions and
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 149

engage in topics regarding the role of scientists, the power of funders, and the needs of the
community. Participants strongly interjected the importance of inviting many ways of looking at
science and the importance of community driven science.
Directions for Future Research

While the findings of this study were limited in scope, the investigation of the
experiences of historically underrepresented faculty members in academic science fields was part
of a larger national conversation. That conversation was primarily focused on actions toward
representation of minorities within science. This investigation synthesized historical perceptions
of culture and race in relationship to topics of stereotypes, identity and socialization to better
understand the complexity of the context of underrepresentation.
As this research was exploratory, the next research steps would be to gather more
information. The interview protocol as developed provided a tool for operationalizing
Bourdieu’s (1990, 1996, 1999) relational framework of field, capital and habitus to participant’s
experience, identity, status, and practice. The initial step would be to extend the interview phase
of the research. The sampling parameters would remain on historically underrepresented
minority with a PhD in as STEM discipline, however, career restrictions would be lifted so that
faculty from all lines and time in those positions would be eligible to participate. This study was
rooted in critical voice through the use of multiple methods, the analysis of power in structures
and lived experience as a critical guide (Bourdieu, 1990, 1996, 1999; Crenshaw, 1991), and the
participant experience that drove construct development. Reopening the investigation and
loosening sampling criteria would allow for findings and emergent constructs to be confirmed,
extended and refined through engagement with those having the experience.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 150

An additional avenue of investigation would be to link findings to specific theories of
identity. The complexity of identity theories and the range of disciplines made this question
difficult to pursue. Additional interviews of varied participants would add the participant voice
to discussions of role-based (Stryker, 1980, 1987), salience (Worchel & Countant, 2004), or
hierarchical approaches (Turner & Reynolds, 2004). As this study was rooted in a critical lens
broadening the interview protocol to intersections (Crenshaw, 1991) of gender, sexual
orientation, or disability could extend findings. Also, current findings pointed to an intersection
of a racial identity and science identity (emergent definition). The direct exploration of resistant
identity within the theoretical frame of identity theory would add to the understanding of
individual attitudes and behaviors driven by contextual, domain identity challenges.
Further work could be done to understand graduate student experience which was
described as highly varied and subject to the autonomous authority of the faculty advisor. The
questions at the focus of this investigation were the control of the faculty member without the
regulation of the academic institution and the reluctance of faculty peers to intervene even when
they disagreed with the practices. Interviews could extend knowledge and the development of a
STEM graduate student semi-structured interview protocol that would explore more directly the
experience of historically underrepresented minorities in academic science graduate programs.
As a final recommendation for further research, this study found emotional motivation
and experience understudied. All the participants in the study were emotional at some point
during the conversation. Scales reviewed explored occupational commitment and affective
organizational identification for non-academic science fields. Perhaps further exploration of the
field could be used to inform the development of questions within the interview protocol to
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 151

understand the role of affect for minority science faculty. The emergent construct affective
recovery suggested a direction toward withdraw and engagement in the scope of productivity.
Conclusion

The results of this study suggested that stereotypes and stigma influence
underrepresented STEM faculty experience at institutions; implicit norms of academic science
influence practice and training, and underrepresented faculty identity pressures implicit norms.
While many new questions were raised by these findings, this study provided a historical context
of race and racism to a nationally recognized topic of underrepresentation in the sciences. The
critical perspective added the richness of lived experience interjected into theories of stereotypes,
identity and socialization to drive relevant and critical voice research. It was the goal of this
study that the new knowledge could provide researchers with ground for further investigations
into underrepresented STEM faculty experience.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 152

References
Abedin, Z., Biskup, E, Silet, K., Garbutt, J. M., Kroenke, K., Feldman, M. D., McGee Jr., R.,
Felming, M., & Pincus, H. A. (2012). Deriving Competencies for Mentors of Clinical
and Translational Scholars. Clinical Translational Science 5, 273-280.
Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Collective identity: Group membership and self-conception.
In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self-Concept and Identity (pp. 147-181).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
AERA. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA
publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.
Aguirre Jr, A. (2000). Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace: Recruitment,
Retention, and Academic Culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27(6).
Alcoff, L. M. (2006). Visible identities: Race, gender and the self. New York: Oxford
University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009, May). Embracing a Breadth of
Purpose. In D. E. Chubin, A. L. DePass & L. Blockus, L. (Eds.) Report of the Committee
for the Third Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions that Broaden
Participation in Research Careers. Retrieved from http://understanding-
interventions.org/2009-report/
Alexander-Floyd, N. (2012). Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social
Sciences in a Post—Black Feminist Era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1-25.
Anthias, F. (2013). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of
analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3-19.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 153

Antony, J. S. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development:
moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J. S. Smart & W. Tierney
(Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 17, pp. 349-380).
New York, NY: Agathon.
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for
collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
bulletin, 130(1), 80-114.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization
to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.
Babco, E.L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM
higher education. New York: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology.
Bancroft, S. (2013). Capital, kinship, and white privilege: Social and cultural influences upon
the minority doctoral experience in the sciences. Multicultural Education, 20(2), 10-16.
Bancroft, S. F., Benson, S. K., & Johnson-Whitt, E. (2016). McNair Scholars' Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Graduate Experience: A Pilot
Study. Mid-western Educational Researcher: Official Publication of the Mid-Western
Educational Research Association, 28(1), 3-27.
Barnard, L. l., Burley, H., Olivarez, A., & Crooks, S. (2008). Measuring vulnerability to
stereotype threat. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(1), 51-63.
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search
interface. Online Review, 13(5), .407-424, https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 154

Baum, S., Cunningham, A. F., & Tanenbaum, C. (2015). Educational Attainment: Understanding
the Data. Retrieved from http://gsehd.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
Educational_Attainment_FINAL_Report_4.27.pdf
Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the
attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social
Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(4), 427-448.
Blackwell, L. V., Snyder, L. A., & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse faculty in STEM fields:
Attitudes, performance, and fair treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education
2(4), 195-205.
Bonilla-Siva, E. (1996). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American
Sociology Review 62(June), 465-80.
Bond, M. A., Kalaja, A., Markkanen, P. Cazeca, D., Daniel S., Tsurikova, L., & Punnett, L.
(2007). Expanding our understanding of the psychosocial work environment: A
compendium of measures of discrimination, harassment and work-family issues.
Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 2008-104. Sherry Baron, NIOSH Editor; Technical Support from Fang Gong &
Donna Pfirman.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Chapter 3 Structures, Habitus, Practices, 52-65 In The logic of practice. (R.
Nice, trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 155

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Part IV The Field
of Power and its Transformations. Section 1: Forms of Power and their Reproduction,
263-299 (Trans. by Lauretta C. Clough). Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Structures and the habitus, 72-95. In Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a theory of
practice (Trans. By Richard Nice). Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural
Anthropology (Eds. Ernest Gellner, Jack Goody, Stephen Gudeman, Michael Herzfeld, &
Jonathan Parry) Vol 16. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74S. Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) U.S. 2094
Burke, P. J. (2004). Identities and social structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead award address.
Social Pscyhology Quarterly, 67, 5-15.
Cable, D. M. & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5), 875-884.
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Prolematizing the STEM pipeline
metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM
workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443-460.
Carlone, H. B., & 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.
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting
integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 4(4), 342-360.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 156

Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES
2014-001). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Cho, H. (2017). Racism and linguicism: Engaging language minority pre-service teachers in
counter-storytelling. Race Ethnicity and Education 20(5), 666-680.
Chubin, Daryl E., Gary S. May, and Eleanor L. Babco. "Diversifying the engineering
workforce." Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1) (2005): 73-86.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3
rd
Ed.): Techniques for
proceduring for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (e-book
published 2012)
Craig, D. D. & Lombardi, J. V. (2013). The best American research universities rankings: Four
perspectives. The Center for Measuring University Performance Annual Report.
Accessed https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/mup-pdf/MUP-Publication-2013-Best-
American-Research-Universities-Four-Perspectives.pdf
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6), 1241-1299.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 4, 269-284.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 157

Crocker, J. & Quinn, D. M. (2004). Psychological consequences of devalued identities. In M.
B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self-Concept and Identity (pp. 124-142). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revisiting the Cross model. In J. G.
Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Custred, G. (1995). What went wrong with affirmative action—and how we can mend it.
Academe 81(6), p. 11-17.
Davis, L. E. (2016). Race: America’s grand challenge. Journal of the Society for Social Work
and Research, 7(2) Retrieved from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c
Davies, S. & Milian, R. P. (2016). Maintaining status in new times: The continuing
stratification of Anglo-American universities. In J.E. Côté and A. Furlong (Eds).
Routledge Handbook of the Sociology of Higher Education. (Chapter 5). doi: 10.4324/
9781315772233
Deemer, E. D., Lin, C., Graham, R., & Soto, C. (2016). Development and Validation of a
Measure of Threatening Gender Stereotypes in Science. Journal of Career Assessment,
24(1), 145-161.
Deemer, E. D., Thoman, D. B., Chase, J. P., & Smith, J. L. (2014). Feeling the threat: Stereotype
threat as a contextual barrier to women’s science career choice intentions. Journal of
Career Development, 41(2), 141-158.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 158

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P. & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet
significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace.
Human Relations, 56(11), 1299-1324.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C. & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations
of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education and Society 4(1), 21-40.
Delton, J. (2009). Racial integration in corporate America, 1940-1990. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of
Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White Fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3(3), 54-70.
Dowd, A. C., Cheslock, J., & Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer access from community colleges
and the distribution of elite higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 79(4),
442-472.
Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R. & Hurtado,
S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 159

Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research:
I. Theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 155-
170.
Emirbayer, M. & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society
37 (1), 1-44.
Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2011). Toward a model of
social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 206-222.
Fagen, A. P., & Olson, S. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding interventions that encourage minorities
to pursue research careers: Summary of a workshop. National Academies Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12022
Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2001). Racial identity development and Latinos in the United
States. New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical
anthology, 32-66.
Fitzgerald, T. D. (2015). Black males and racism: Improving the schooling and life chances of
African Americans. New York: Routledge.
Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic Bullying: A Barrier to Tenure and Promotion for African-
American Faculty. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 5(1), 1-13.
Fries-Britt, S. L., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Laura W., Perna, L. W., Jeffrey F., Milem, J. F. &
Howard, D. G. (2011). Underrepresentation in the Academy and the Institutional
Climate for Faculty Diversity. Journal of the Professorate, 5(1), 1-34.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 160

Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly
selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 4(4), 212-222.
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S. & Chang, M. J. (2012). From
Gatekeeping to Engagement: A Multicontextual, Mixed Method Study of Student
Academic Engagement in Introductory STEM Courses. Research in Higher Education
53(2), 229-261.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conception of self and morality. Harvard
Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
Girves, J. E., Zepeda, Y., & Gwathmey, J. K. (2005). Mentoring in a post‐affirmative action
world. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 449-479.
Gopaul, B. (2011). Distinction in doctoral education: Using Bourdieu’s tools to assess the
socialization of doctoral students. Equity and Excellence in Education, 44(1), 10-21.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 74(6), 1464-1480.
Griffin, K. A., Gibbs Jr., K. D., Bennett, J.C., Staples, C., Robinson, T. (2015). “Respect me for
my science”: A Bourdieuan analysis of women scientists' interactions with faculty and
socialization into science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
1(2), 159-179.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 3(1), 42-55.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 161

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1) 9–29.
Harrell, S.P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress:
Implications for the well-being of people of color. American journal of Orthopsychiatry,
70(1), 42-57.
Helms, J. (1997). Toward a model of white racial identity development. In K. Arnold & I. King
(Eds.). College Student Development and Academic Life: Psychological, Intellectual and
Moral Issues. New York: Garland Publishers.
Higher Education Research Institute. (2017). 2016-17 HERI Faculty Survey added a STEM
module. Retrieved from https://ucla.app.box.com/v/FAC-STEM-Module
Hilton, J. L. & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Pscyhology 47, 237-272.
Holley, K. A. & Garnder, S. (2012) Navigating the pipeline: How socio-cultural influences
impact first-generation doctoral students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2),
112-121.
Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of
Consumer Research 25(1), 1-25.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K.M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A crucial comparison
of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-
269.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 162

Horse, P. G. (2001). Reflections on American Indian identity. In C.L. Wijeyesinghe, C. L., &
B.W. Jackson III (Eds.), New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A
Theoretical and Practical Anthology. New York: New York University Press. 91-107.
Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Creating inclusive environments:
The mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of
discrimination/bias to students’ sense of belonging. Journal Committed to Social Change
on Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 60-81.
Hurtado, S. & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college student’s sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324-345.
Hurtado, S., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Allen, W. R., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting Diverse Learning
Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26 (8). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’
sense of validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment
Management Journal, 5(2), 53-71.
Hurtado, S. & Figueroa, T. (2013). Women of color faculty in science technology engineering
and mathematics (STEM): Experiences in academia. Appendix A-2 (p. 93-107) in
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 163

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Prepared for Seeking Solutions:
Maximizing American Talen by Advancing Women of Color in Academia: Summary of a
Conference. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Jackson, J. F. L. (2008). Race segregation across the academic workforce. American
Behavioral Scientist 51(7), 1004-1029.
Johnsrud, L., & Sadao, K. (1998). The common experience of "otherness": Ethnic and racial
faculty of color. Review of Higher Education, 21, 315–342.
Kaschak, E. (2015). Little White lies: Racialization and the White/Black divide. Women and
Therapy, 38, p 185-193.
Kelly, E. & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management.
American Behavioral Scientist 41(7), 960-984.
Kim, J. (2001). Process of Asian American identity. In C.L. Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & B.W.
Jackson III (Eds.), New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A Theoretical and
Practical Anthology. New York: New York University Press.
King N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In Cassell C., Symon G. (Eds.), Qualitative
methods in organisational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, Y. C. (1963 [1952]) Culture: a critical review of concepts and
definitions. Papers, 47 (1). Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ladson-Billings G. (2012). Through a glass darkly: The persistence of race in education
research & scholarship. Educational Researcher, 41(4), 115-120.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 164

Lee, S. M. (1993). Racial classifications in the US census: 1890-1990. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 16(1), p. 75-94).
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie
gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262-265.
Long, M. C. (2007). Affirmative action and its alternatives in public universities: What do we
know? Public Administration Review, 67(2), 315-330.
MacLachlan, A. J. (2006). Developing graduate students of color for the professoriate in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in
Higher Education. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3892k4rm
Mahoney, M. R., Wilson, E., Odom, K.L., Flowers, L., & Adler, S. R. (2008). Minority faculty
voices on diversity in academic medicine: Perspectives from one school. Academic
Medicine, 83(8), 781-786.
Malone, G. P., Pillow, D. R., & Osman, A. (2012). The general belongingness scale (BGS):
Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences 52, 311-316.
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (ed.), Handbook of Adolescent
Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Martinez, V., Miller, M. H., & Tyson, W. (2014). Analyzing STEM faculty demographics and
faulty climate survey. In Alliances for Advancing Academic Women: Bold Visions in
Educational Research, Gilmer, P. J., Tansel, B., Miller, M.H. (eds). Rotterdam
Netherlands: SensePublishers.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 165

Massey, D., Charles, C., Lundy, G., & Fischer, M. J. (2011). The Source of the River. The
Social Origins of Freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Master, A., & Metzoff, A. N. (2016). Building bridges between psychological science and
education: Cultural stereotypes, STEM, and equity. Prospects 46, 215-234.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 30(3), 1771-1800.
McGee, R. (2016). Biomedical workforce diversity: The context for mentoring to develop
talents and foster success within the ‘pipeline.’ AIDS and Behavior, 20(2), 231-237.
McGee, E., & Martin, D.B. (2011). “You would not believe what I have to go through to prove
my intellectual value!” Stereotype management among academically successful Black
mathematics and engineering students. American Educational Research Journal,48(6),
1,347-1,389.
McIntosh, P. (1988). Reading 6. White Privilege and Male privilege: A personal account of
coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. The Teacher in
American Society: A Critical Anthology 121(2010) p. 29-36.
McKinley Jones Brayboy, B. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly white
colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce Literature.
Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2) Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/item/6zf09176
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 166

Merton, R. K. (1942). Science, technology and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political
Sociology 1, 115.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology 78(4), 538-551.
Mountz, A., Bonds, A., Mansfield, B., Loyd, J., Hyndman, J., Walton-Roberts, M., Basu, R.,
Whitson, R., Hawkins, R., Hamilton, T. & Curran, W. (2015). For slow scholarship: A
feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university.
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1235-1259.
Mullings, L. (2005) Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology. Annual Review
of Anthropology 34, p. 667-93.
Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review 89, 1-15.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2011). Expanding
underrepresented minority participation: American's science and technology talent at the
crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
www.nap.edu/catalog/12984.html
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Integrating discovery-
based research into the undergraduate curriculum: Report of a convocation.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/21851
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016a). Barriers and opportunities
for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees systemic change to support diverse student
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 167

pathways. In S. Malcom & M. Feder, (Eds), Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in
Completing 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees, Board on Science Education and Board
on Higher Education and the Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/21739
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016b). Promising practices for
strengthening the regional STEM workforce development ecosystem. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/21894
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016c). Developing a national
STEM workforce strategy: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/21900
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Enrollment and percentage distribution of
enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region:
Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2023 (NCES, Table 203.50) Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The Condition
of Education 2017: Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty (NCES 2017-144),
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Number and
percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 168

degree/certificate, and sex of student: 2008-09 through 2015-16 (NCES 2017-144),
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_318.45.asp
National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and
engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and
improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. In S.R. Singer, N.R.
Nielsen & H.A. Schweingruber (Eds), Committee on the Status, Contributions, and
Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive programs in out-of-
school settings. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning, Board on
Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2016). Seeking solutions: Maximizing American talent by
advancing women of color in academia: Summary of a conference. Karin Matchett,
Rapporteur. Committee on Advancing Institutional Transformation for Minority Women
in Academia; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and
Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators digest 2016 (NSB-2016-2)
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. (2008). Broadening participation at the National Science
Foundation: A framework for action. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 169

Ng, J., Lee, S., & Pak, Y. (2007). Contesting the model minority and perpetual foreigner
stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in education. Review of
Research in Education, 31, 95-130.
Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of
minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1314-1334.
Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender,
race, and science. Social problems, 52(4), 593-617.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. The Free Press of Glencoe, London.
Phinney, J. S. (1993). A threestage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M.
E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity formation and transmission among
Hispanic and other minorities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pittman, C. T. (2012). Racial microaggressions: The narratives of African American faculty at a
predominantly White university. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 82-92.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes.
Journal of personality and Social Psychology 76, 114-128.
Picho, K., & Brown, S. W. (2011). Can stereotype threat be measured? A validation of the social
identities and attitudes scale (SIAS). Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 374-411.
Rankin, S. R. & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and White
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(1), 43-61.
Reicher, S. (2004). The Psychology of group dynamics. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Self-Concept and Identity (pp.232-258). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 170

Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse student: Toward a new model of learning
and student development. Innovative Higher Education 19(1), 33-51.
Renn, K. A. (2003) Understanding the identities of mixed-race college students through a
developmental ecology lens. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 383-403.
Rios, D., Capobiano, B. M., & Godwin, A. (2017). Repositioning race, gender and role identity
formation for Black women in engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science
and Engineering, 23(1), 37-52.
Rios, D. & Stewart, A. J. (2015). Insider and outsider-within standpoints: The experiences of
diverse faculty in science and engineering fields. Journal of Woman and Minorities in
Science and Engineering, 21(4), 295-322.
Rodriguez, J. E., Campbell, K. M., & Pololi, L. H. (2015). Addressing disparities in academic
medicine: What of the minority tax? BMC Medical Education, 15(6). Retrieved from
https://bmcmededuc-biomedcentral-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/articles/10.1186/s12909-015-
0290-9
Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, J., Kristapovich, P., and Manning, E.
(2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study (NCES 2012-046). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046/chapter6_5.asp
Ryan, G. W. & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1),
85-109.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 171

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Tabbye, M. C., Shelton, J. N. & Smith, M. A. (1997).
Multidimensional inventory of Black identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability
and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(4), 805-815.
Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2011). The symbolic interactionist perspective and identity theory. In
S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (pp. 225-248). New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smith, L., & Cokely, K. (2016). Stereotype Threat vulnerability: A psychometric investigation
of the social identities and attitudes scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development 49(2), 145-162.
Spafford, M. M., Nygaard, V. L., Gregor, F., & Boyd, M. A. (2006). “Navigating the different
spaces”: Experiences of inclusion and isolation among racially minoritized faculty in
Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(1) 1-27.
Spencer, S. J. (1993). The effect of stereotype vulnerability on women’s math performance.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
Stam, R. & Shohat, E. (2012). Race in translation: Culture wars around the postcolonial
Atlantic. New York University Press, New York.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 172

Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., McCormick, L. (1992). Toward
integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education
Quarterly 19(1), 1-8.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.
Research in higher education, 44(6), 641-656.
Stryker, S. ( [1980] 2002). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Caldwell, NJ:
Blackburn Press.
Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yarley & T. Hones
(Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 83-103). New York: Wiley.
Stryker, S., Serpe, R. T., and Hunt, M. O. (2005). Making good on a promise: The impact of
larger social structures on commitment. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances
in Group Processes 22, (pp. 93-128). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Subramaniam, B. & Wyer, M. (1998). Assimilating the ‘culture of no culture’ in science:
Feminist interventions in (de)mentoring graduate women. Feminist Teacher, 12(1),
12-28.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 173

Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R. H., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2011).
Racial dialogues: Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(3), 331.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.
Swartz, D. L. (2009). Bringing Bourdieu's master concepts into organizational analysis. Theory
and Society 37, 45-52.
Sweitzer, V. B. (2009). Towards a theory of doctoral student professional identity development:
A developmental networks approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 1-33.
Tanaka, F. K. (2002) Higher education’s self-reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of
student development. The Journal of Higher Education 73(2), 263-296.
Terrell F. & Terrell, S. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among Blacks. The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 5(3), 180-185.
Tierney, W. G.. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603–618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research 45, p. 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 174

Thomas, K. M., Johnson-Bailey, J., Phelps, R. E., Tran, N. M., & Johnson, L. N. (2013).
Women of color at midcareer: Going from pet to threat. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene
(Eds.), Psychological Health of Women of Color: Intersections, Challenges, and
Opportunities (pp. 275-286). Santa Barbara: CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, Jr., A. L., & Romero Dias, C. E. (2012). The racial
microaggressions Scale (RMAS): A new scale to measure experiences of racial
microaggressions in people of color. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
18(2), 153-164.
Tropp, L. R. & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup Identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the
self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 575-600.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002) Women of Color in Academe. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1),
74-93.
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20
years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139-168.
Turner, C. S. V., Gonzalez, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical
nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199-211.
Turner, C.S., Meyers, S.L., & Creswell, J.W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case
of faculty of color inthe midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27-59.
Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup Relations:
Theories, Themes, and Controversies. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self-
Concept and Identity (pp. 259-277). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Tucker, I. (2012). The moment of racial sight: A history. University of Chicago Press.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 175

Utsey, S. O. & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996). Development and validation of the index of race-related
stress (IRRS). Journal of Counseling Psychology 43(4), 490-501.
van Dick, R. & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions,
foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11(2),
129-149.
Valdeón, R. A. (2013). The use of Latin American, Hispanic and Latino in US academic
articles, 2000-2010. Terminology 19(1), 112-137.
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and Integration
of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia, Chicano School Failure and
Success: Past, Present, and Future (Second Edition), (Ed.), Pp. 83-99, 104-109.
Weidman, G. E., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional
students in higher education: A perilous passage. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report,
28(3). Washington D. C.: Association for the Study of Education.
Widnall, S. E. (1988). AAAS Presidential Lecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science,
241(4874), 1740-1745.
Worchel, S. & Countant, D. (2004). It takes two to tango: Relating group identity to individual
identity within the framework of group development. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Self-Concept and Identity (pp. 182-202). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Ylijoki, O. H. (2000). Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying—A case-study of
four Finnish university departments. Higher Education, 39(3), 339-362.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 176

Zambrana, R. E., Wingfield, A. H, Lapeyrouse, L. M., Davila, B. A., Hoagland, T. L. & Valdez,
R. B. (2017). Blatant, subtle and insidious: URM faculty perceptions of discriminatory
practices in predominantly White institutions. Sociological Inquiry, 87(2), 207-232.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 177

Appendix A: Survey—Operationalizing Minority Faculty Experience

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Cynthia Joseph, doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California. The purpose of this study is to understand the
experience of minority faculty in science fields from the individual's perspective and to identify
the discipline-related challenges that may be present.

Your participation includes the completion of a short survey (10 minutes to complete) and then a
20 minute interview about your experience as a science faculty member. The survey will ask
some demographic and career information and then discuss topics of race and academia.
Your needs for confidentiality are very important to me. Any identifying information will be
deleted from transcripts and held in password secured files and computers.

To protect your anonymity, no individually identifying information will be
described. Description of participants will be listed as a group (i.e., 2 women interviewed,
races included African American and Latino, searching for faculty position, average of 3
national minority professional organizations memberships, etc).

Should you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Cynthia
Joseph at cynthijr@usc.edu. Additional contact information is on the informed consent that you
have signed.

Your participation is voluntary. If you decide to participate, please select continue below. Also,
you may decide to quit at any time.

Findings from the study will add, extend and refine understanding of minority science faculty
experience. If you consent to participate, please select continue below.
o Continue (4)

Page Break

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 178

What is/are your highest degree(s)?
▢ Ph.D. (1)
▢ M.D. (2)
▢ Other doctorate (3) ________________________________________________

What is your current position? (choose all that apply)
▢ Full-time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-time Faculty (2)
▢ Seeking Full-time Faculty appointment (3)

What type of institution are you employed with and/or in what type of institution are you seeking
employment? (choose all that apply)
▢ Two Year College (1)
▢ Four Year College (2)
▢ Research Intensive (3)
▢ Highly Selective (4)
▢ Elite Institution (5)
▢ Public University (6)
▢ Private University (7)
▢ Technical Institute (8)

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 179

Number of years at current position

0 (0)
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (5)
6 (6)
7 (7)
8 (8)
9 (9)
10 (10)

Number of minority professional organization memberships

0 (0)
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (5)
6 (6)
7 (7)
8 (8)
9 (9)
10 (10)

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 180

What kinds of activities are you involved in?
▢ Graduate student advisement (1)
▢ Student mentoring (2)
▢ Community engagement (3)
▢ Minority Organization involvement (4)
▢ Other (5) ________________________________________________

Please select all that apply:
▢ Black/African American (1)
▢ Alaskan Native/Native Hawai'ian (2)
▢ Asian (3)
▢ Latina/o (4)
▢ Native/Native American (5)
▢ Native Hawai'ian or Pacific Islander (6)
▢ White/Caucasian (7)
▢ Other/Additional Information (8)
________________________________________________

Please select one:
o Male (1)
o Female (2)

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 181

How do you feel about language used to describe faculty composition?

No reaction
to this (1)
Dislike this
term (2)
This term is
OK (3)
Prefer this
term (4)
Not familiar
with term (5)
Diverse (1)
o o o o o
Minority (2)
o o o o o
Faculty of Color
(3)
o o o o o
Historically
underrepresented
(4)
o o o o o
URM (5)
o o o o o
Affirmative
Action (6)
o o o o o
Inclusive (7)
o o o o o

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 182

What practices does your institution use in recruiting historically underrepresented faculty into
your department/school? (choose all that apply) See chart on next page

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 183

Not used (1) Currently used (2) Wish they would (3)
University
administration formal
directives (1)
▢ ▢ ▢
University
administration
informal directives
(2)
▢ ▢ ▢
Dean formal
directives (3)
▢ ▢ ▢
Dean informal
directives (4)
▢ ▢ ▢
Department formal
directives (5)
▢ ▢ ▢
Department informal
directives (6)
▢ ▢ ▢
Search committee
composition formally
requiring diverse
composition (7)
▢ ▢ ▢
Search committee
composition
informally requiring
diverse composition
(8)
▢ ▢ ▢
Targeted promotion
of new faculty
appointment (9)
▢ ▢ ▢
Networking with
potential candidates
(10)
▢ ▢ ▢
Persistent follow up
with potential
candidates (11)
▢ ▢ ▢
On-campus
networking with
current minority
faculty (12)
▢ ▢ ▢
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 184

Informal support for
recruitment initiatives
among current faculty
(13)
▢ ▢ ▢
No known systematic
process for hiring
minority faculty (14)
▢ ▢ ▢
Recruitment and
hiring process left to
committee's
discretion (15)
▢ ▢ ▢

Page Break

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 185

I’d like to shift to a story. We will talk about this story in the interview. For now, just read it.

The story is taken from a case study about a Black male who excelled in math from elementary
school and has successfully obtained a PhD in Mathematics (McGee, 2011)

Rob was Black and he loved mathematics. His racial identity was central as was excelling in
mathematics. But this caused a conflict for Rob. While in school from grade school through
advanced degrees, his concern was not differences between he and other students (fitting in or
included/excluded) or between he and the institution (values or receiving support). His primary
reaction in this category was the expectations of him because of his racial identity.

He described several responses to this conflict including asking questions of his mother,
manipulating his peers by playing into stereotypes, self-determination to excel, and desiring to
train an all-Black math championship team. Above all his emotional response is all about his
reaction to the stereotypes and stigmatized experience of being both Black and excelling in
mathematics.

The complexity of his identity is evidenced by his choices. He left an elite higher education
institution even though he had grown up in a diverse environment (Blacks and Whites in school
together). He completed a Bachelor’s and three Master’s degrees (two for teaching) and then a
Ph.D. in applied mathematics “just to get it” (p. 14). Then he got a job in a suburban high
performing school but choose to leave to teach in the inner city. His dream (which he barely is
hanging onto) is to lead an all-Black competitive high school math team to the championships
and win.

Rob evidences strength of agency in living his life and excelling in the discipline of
mathematics. It is not just that he wants to do something positive, he wants to challenge the
norm by supporting, teaching and show-casing Black achievement.

His identity is central because the stereotypes of the U.S. culture stigmatized his identity. This
ensuing conflict is pivotal to his work choices, well-being, and career.

McGee, E. O. (2011). From the hood to being hooded: A case study of a Black Male
PhD. Journal of African American Males in Education 2(1), 2-21.
In your experience, how frequently does this kind of story happen?
Never All the time
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
lick to write Choice 1 (1)

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 186

Please indicate whether you feel the following statements describe the natural sciences
disciplines. See chart on next page
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 187

Strongly
disagree (1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Strongly
agree (5)
Science is
acultural (not
determined by
or relating to
any culture)
(1)
o o o o o
Power
preserves
science
culture. (2)
o o o o o
The
uncomfortable,
like race,
cannot be
discussed. (3)
o o o o o
The value of
individual
choice shields
science culture
from change.
(4)
o o o o o
The freedom
of the advisor
to govern the
lab is
intractable. (5)
o o o o o
Graduate
school is an
acculturation
process. (6)
o o o o o
Giving
students help
is a sign that
you are
lowering
standards. (7)
o o o o o
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 188

To be a serious
scientist means
you are
dedicated to
research and
emotionless.
(8)
o o o o o
Group norms
prohibit
reflection on
practice,
impact or
consequences.
(9)
o o o o o
Status
hierarchy is
deeply
embedded in
academic
practices. (10)
o o o o o

Page Break

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 189

Thank you for completing this survey. Your responses are very important to this research. An
email will be coming soon to make arrangements for the interview.

Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. Please
contact Cynthia at any time with questions or concerns: cynthijr@usc.edu

Again, thank you for your contribution to this work!
Best wishes,
Cynthia Joseph

DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 190

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Welcome and let me start by thanking you for your participation. Before we get started I want to
just talk about this project to make sure that you are comfortable participating. First, can you
tell me in your own words what you are being asked to do? Second, in your own words, what is
this study about? Finally, what are the risks of participating in the study?
Thank you for talking through that with me. My goal is to hear your story and thoughts and
learn from your experience. I want to remind you you’re your participation is completely
voluntary and can change at any time. If you would prefer not to answer a question, just say so
and I’ll move on. Also, I wanted to confirm that the audio portion of the interview is being
recorded. Is that ok with you? Are you ready to begin?
We’re going to begin by walking through the questions on the survey. I do have your responses
here. The first question asks about words used by your institution to describe race and faculty.
You answered __________________.
1. What language is used at your institution to describe faculty racial composition?
a. Diverse
b. Minority
c. Faculty of Color
d. Historically underrepresented
e. Affirmative action
f. Inclusive
g. Other
Can you explain what about that term you find most useful?
What about _______________. What about that is undesirable?
Does the kind of college or university impact the language used?
Now moving on to recruiting practices. You indicated ______________________________.
2. What practices does your institution use in recruiting historically underrepresented
faculty into your department/school?
a. University administration formal directives
b. University administration informal directives
c. Dean formal directives
d. Dean informal directives
e. Department formal directives
f. Department informal directives
g. Search committee composition formally requiring diverse composition
h. Search committee composition informally requiring diverse composition
i. Targeted promotion of new faculty appointment
j. Networking with potential candidates
k. Persistent follow up with potential candidates
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 191

l. On-campus networking with current minority faculty
m. Informal support for recruitment initiatives among current faculty
n. No known systematic process for hiring minority faculty
o. Recruitment and hiring process left to committee's discretion
How were you aware of this information? follow w/: Did you serve on more than one committee?
What strategies were not used to recruit you? What was said to make you think that?
I listed formal and informal directives. In your thinking, what is the difference between those?
For this work, what kind of directive is needed or would be most effective?
Are institutions ever neutral regarding race? How? Why or why not?
I’d like to shift to the story of Rob that you read in the survey. I can read you the story again, if
you’d like. (read if requested, otherwise move on)
3. The story is taken from a case study about a Black male who excelled in math from
elementary school and has successfully obtained a PhD in Mathematics (McGee, 2011)
Rob was Black and he loved mathematics. His racial identity was central as was exceling in
mathematics. But this caused a conflict for Rob. While in school from grade school through
advanced degrees, his concern was not differences between he and other students (fitting in or
included/excluded) or between he and the institution (values or receiving support). His primary
reaction in this category was the expectations of him because of his racial identity.
He described several responses to this conflict including asking questions of his mother,
manipulating his peers by playing into stereotypes, self-determination to excel, and desiring to
train an all-Black math championship team. Above all his emotional response is all about his
reaction to the stereotypes and stigmatized experience of being both Black and excelling in
mathematics.
The complexity of his identity is evidenced by his choices. He left an elite higher education
institution even though he had grown up in a diverse environment (Blacks and Whites in school
together). He completed a Bachelor’s and three Master’s degrees (two for teaching) and then a
Ph.D. in applied mathematics “just to get it” (p. 14). Then he got a job in a suburban high
performing school but choose to leave to teach in the inner city. His dream (which he barely is
hanging onto) is to lead an all-Black competitive high school math team to the championships
and win.
Rob evidences strength of agency in living his life and exceling in the discipline of mathematics.
It is not just that he wants to do something positive, he wants to challenge the norm by
supporting, teaching and show-casing Black achievement.
His identity is central because the stereotypes of the U.S. culture stigmatized his identity. This
ensuing conflict is pivotal to his work choices, well-being, and career.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 192

McGee, E. O. (2011). From the hood to being hooded: A case study of a Black Male PhD.
Journal of African American Males in Education 2 Journal of African American Males in
Education 2(1), 2-21.
In the survey you estimated that this story happened (all the time to never). What made you say
that?
What seems to be the challenge for Rob?
For me, it seems that he was torn between two aspects of himself—being Black and loving math.
How do you see it? Have you ever experienced a similar dilemma/issue?
What struck you about this story as important for individuals to understand about Rob?
Moving forward, I have asked you to think about the following statements about faculty and
graduate students in the sciences.
4. Please indicate whether you feel the following statements describe the natural sciences
disciplines
a. Science is acultural (not determined by or relating to any culture)
b. Power preserves science culture.
c. The uncomfortable, like race, cannot be discussed.
d. The value of individual choice shields science culture from change.
e. The freedom of the advisor to govern the lab is intractable.
f. Graduate school is an acculturation process.
g. Giving students help is a sign that you are lowering standards.
h. To be a serious scientist means you are dedicated to research and emotionless.
i. Group norms prohibit reflection on practice, impact or consequences.
j. Status hierarchy is deeply embedded in academic practices.
You indicated that you felt strongly about __________________. Can you share why?
Can you tell me what emotions that you are experiencing right now? Does this happen often?
Do these kind of emotions affect your well-being? If so, how?
Just to wrap up, we’ve walked through so many experiences in a short time. Are there any things
that you have thought of about being a scientist and being underrepresented in your
profession that you would like to express?
I want to thank you for speaking with me and sharing your thoughts and experiences. Your
thoughts and your experiences are invaluable to creating understanding and communities
of change. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 193

Appendix C: Case Study Two—Emergent Themes
Category Statements
Characteristics
of Graduate
School
Graduate School Norms:
Science is learned through a protégé-master model.
Students are powerless.
Faculty are powerful.
Graduate students are happier when they are independent.
Graduate school is supposed to be difficult so students toughen up.
Graduate school is a time when you become passionate about a research
topic.
Students become invisible to survive.
Faculty forget the stresses of grad school and repeat the stressors.
Role of Faculty in Science Culture:
A lab is like a family with a head of the house.
Faculty rule with impunity.
The freedom of the PI is intractable.
The value of individual power shields science culture from change.
Power preserves science culture.
Faculty “have the prerogative to control their own labs” (p. 21)
“[A]s members of the scientific community, [faculty] responsibilities
included discussing, sharing, and sometimes intervening in mentoring
relationships with their colleagues.” P. 21
Characteristics
of Science
Science and Identity:
What I study is separate from me
I must be separate from the study to be objective
To be a scientist, I must separate from myself
To be a scientist, I must separate from others
Abstract analysis expands knowledge; concrete experience contracts
knowledge.
To be a scientist, I must commit exclusively to science
Thinking as a scientist suppresses thinking of others
The quintessential ideal of science is to be objective, detached, rational &
asocial.
Scientific identity means merging the scientific ideal into your sense of
self.
______ and science are preconceived by others to be incongruous.
Culture of science:
Science is acultural (Not determined by or relating to any specific culture)
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/acultural)
Receiving help is an indication that you lack merit.
Giving help is an indication that you are lowering standards.
Science culture acts as a master culture.
Anecdotal evidence cannot be prototypical.
The uncomfortable, like race, can’t be discussed.
Science does not reflect any position.
Science is universal.
DISCOVERING IMPLICIT ACADEMIC SCIENCE NORMS 194

Socialization
&
Acculturation
(Submaraniam
& Wyer, 1998)
Norms of Acculturation:
Graduate school is an acculturation process.
Acculturation includes accepting a role as a knowledge producer.
Acculturation includes not discussing or reflecting on knowledge production.
Acculturation includes isolating from the social world and the relational
consequences of that knowledge production
The norms of gender, race and class are preserved by the acculturation
process.
Acculturation in science has no norms of gender, race and class.
To be a serious scientist means that you are “single minded, dedicated,
emotionless, well connected, and intellectually curious” (p. 17)
Norms of Training:
Science students should follow in the footsteps of their mentor.
The natural process of becoming a scientist is emotionally painful.
Faculty mentors who know how to communicate constructive criticism and
meet student needs reduce the emotional pain of becoming a scientist.
Changes in the climate of graduate training requires changes in science
culture.
Scientific training is not just technical; the training is relational.
Graduate school develops independent thinkers about science through
isolation, impersonal mentoring and stressful criticism.
Graduate school acculturates individuals into the group’s norms.
Graduate students just want support but support cannot be given.
“Graduate work is all-consuming.” (Quote 2:38)
Norms of the
academy
Nothing but the assumed, written norms of the academy:
Cross-disciplinary discussions are governed by rationality
Faculty say what they think
Highly trained thinkers can process and discuss new data
Academic arguing is not emotional
Good guys listen, learn and discuss
Women can participate fully in the discussion
What they found out:
Open discussion hardly exists
Silence is profound, stifling and preferred
Second-class status is not only present in sciences/engineering it is “deeply
entangled with unspoken, unacknowledged taken-for-granted practices
between and among faculty and women graduate students.” (p. 16)
Academic Norms:
Multiple and conflicting ideas are welcome in academia.
Group norms prohibit reflection on practices, impacts or consequences.
The values of freedom and self-determination are at the core of academia.
Faculty maintain virtually absolute power and control over their lab.
Faculty have impunity in exercising power over their students.
Faculty maintain a code of silence in their colleagues’ affairs.
Faculty authority is sacred, unquestioned and untouchable.
Status hierarchy is deeply embedded in academic practices.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated the experience of early career minority faculty in STEM fields by identifying unmeasured themes specific to the norms of academic science. As a mixed-method exploratory, sequential research design (Creswell, 2009), this investigation was triangulated in three phases. Applying qualitative methods (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), current fielded instruments to describe minority experience were identified and described as a priori codes then case studies were coded with identified and emerging themes. Information from these two phases informed the development of a survey and an explanatory interview protocol. Findings suggested that faculty experience racial stereotypes, implicit science norms influence both graduate training and faculty practice, and minority faculty identity pressure science norms. The final output was the construct of resistant identity including both a racial and science identity and characterized by a list of six emergent themes: external commitment, supportive orientation, cultural openness, political lens, confrontational willingness, and affective recovery. These findings suggested further exploration of minority STEM faculty experience to confirm and refine the context of underrepresentation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

PDF

Chameleons and kungas: the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academic service

PDF

Personalized normative feedback applied to undergraduates with problem drinking: a comparison with psychoeducation and an examination of cognitive-affective change mechanisms via the articulated ...

Asset Metadata

Creator Joseph, Cynthia J. (author)

Core Title Discovering implicit academic science norms through the experience of historically underrepresented STEM faculty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/30/2020

Defense Date 08/23/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag a priori codes,academic science,acceptable science,acculturation,advisor,affect,affective recovery,Affirmative Action,aspects of fit,Bourdieu,Capital,case study,Climate,confrontation willingness,context of underrepresentation,cultural openness,culture,early career faculty,emergent themes,external commitment,faculty of color,faculty survey,Field,field of power,framework,Graduate School,habitus,historically underrepresented,historically underrepresented faculty,identity,implicit academic science norms,implicit norms,institutional recruitment,instrument review,interview protocol,learning environments,lived experience,meaning-making,minoritized,minority,mixed methods,norms,OAI-PMH Harvest,occupational commitment,participant voice,performance anxiety,political lens,Population,Power,practice,Race,race-related stress,racial identity,racial narrative,Racism,relational,research design,researcher perspective,resistant identity,science identity,science self-efficacy,sense of belonging,social identity,socialization,status hierarchy,STEM,STEM faculty,stereotype,stereotype threat,stigma,stigma consciousness,supportive orientation,survey,technical document review,underrepresented,URM,voice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Chung, Ruth Gim H. (committee member), MacCalla, Nicole Marie-Gerardi (committee member), Slaughter, John (committee member)

Creator Email cr_instructor@hotmail.com,cynthijr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-99102

Unique identifier UC11676806

Identifier etd-JosephCynt-6921.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-99102 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JosephCynt-6921.pdf

Dmrecord 99102

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Joseph, Cynthia J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA