Suchergebnisse

AbstractAlthough indigenous populations have been subjected to some of the worst forms of institutionalized oppression in the United States, little social science research has sought to understand the day-to-day ethnoracial biases that contemporary Native American populations face. Seeking to expand this knowledge, we present a theoretical framework of the cultural processes of ethnoracial disadvantage experienced by Native American students in predominantly white colleges. Drawing on 65 in-depth interviews with 50 Native students, we identify four cultural processes of disadvantage: derogatory stereotyping, exoticized othering, delegitimation, and assimilation pressures related to cultural hegemony. Intertwined with these processes is the cultural permissibility of ignorance, a willful dearth of knowledge—and lack of accountability for knowledge—about indigenous peoples, traditions, and histories of oppression which enable these biases and exclusions. Students tend to respond to these cultural processes of disadvantage in three ways: educating others, working to disprove stereotypes, and spanning two worlds. We end by discussing how these results help advance theoretical understanding of ethnoracial bias toward indigenous populations and cultural processes of ethnoracial inequality in the United States more broadly.

Can epistemologies anchor processes of social inequality? In this paper, we consider how epistemological dominance in science, engineering, and health (SE&H) fields perpetuates disadvantages for students who enter higher education with alternative epistemologies. Drawing on in-depth interviews with Native American students enrolled at two US research universities who adhere to or revere indigenous epistemologies, we find that epistemological dominance in SE&H degree programs disadvantages students through three processes. First, it delegitimizes Native epistemologies and marginalizes and silences students who value them. Second, in the process of imparting these dominant scientific epistemologies, SE&H courses sometimes require students to participate in pedagogical practices that challenge indigenous ways of knowing. Third, students encounter epistemological imperialism: most students in the sample are working to earn SE&H degrees in order to return to tribal communities to "give back," yet, because the US laws regulating the practice of SE&H extend onto tribal lands, students must earn credentials in epistemologies that devalue, delegitimate, and threaten indigenous knowledge ways to practice on tribal lands. We examine how students navigate these experiences, discuss the implications of these findings for SE&H education, and describe how epistemological dominance may serve as a mechanism of inequality reproduction more broadly.

Understanding group-based inequalities in education requires attention not only to performance and achievement outcomes, but also to whether and how students sustain motivation for their educational and career paths over long periods of time. The self-regulation of motivation (SRM) model describes how students' choices to persist are driven by the dynamic interaction between goals-defined motivation, which typically guides choices to start or reengage in an activity, and experience-defined motivation (or interest), which becomes a proximal predictor of persistence once engaged in the activity. Social influences can shape both kinds of motivations in ways that systematically contribute to differences in student persistence across groups and in how people self-regulate motivation. In this paper, we detail the ways in which social roles and group norms, interpersonal bias, and institutional structural barriers can shape motivational experiences and persistence of underrepresented groups of students through several specified processes within the SRM model. We describe how the model might illumine underlying causes of differential participation rates in certain fields, and we discuss key directions for future research.

PurposeAnnual performance evaluations of faculty are a routine, yet essential, task in higher education. Creating (or revising) performance criteria presents an opportunity for leaders to work with their teams to co-create evaluation metrics that broaden participation and minimise inequity. The purpose of this study was to support organisational leaders in developing equitable performance criteria.Design/methodology/approachWe adopted the "dual-agenda" dialogues training that draws on concepts of collective self-efficacy and intersectionality for department leaders to co-create annual review criteria with their faculty members at one university. We used qualitative and quantitative data to assess the training and conducted an equity audit of the resulting annual review criteria.FindingsSurvey results from faculty members and departmental leaders (n = 166) demonstrated general satisfaction with the process used to create new criteria, perceptions that their criteria were inclusive and optimism about future reviews. Those with greater familiarity with the dialogues process had more positive perceptions of the inclusivity of their department's criteria and more positive expectations of future reviews. The examination of eight indicators of equity illustrated that the resultant criteria were transparent and holistic.Originality/valueThis study builds on the relatively little research on faculty members' annual performance evaluations, focussing on inclusive dialogues that centre equity and diversity. Results highlight the value of providing department leaders with evidence-based tools to foster system-level change through equitable evaluation policies. A toolkit is available for adaptation of the "dual-agenda" leadership training to both co-create annual review criteria and improve equity and inclusion.