The Science of Diversifying Science
September 28, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
For over 30 years the U.S. has spent billions of public and
private dollars to get more ethnic minorities into science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors
and careers.
Sadly, the result has been a perpetually small pool of competitively eligible STEM students from underrepresented groups. And it is this small pool we compete over for our graduate programs and professions, perpetuating the status
quo of too few minority scientists, engineers, physicians, etc., to meet the U.S. workforce needs.
The success of underrepresented, ethnic minorities in
the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), Biology
Scholars Program (BSP) over the last 14 years provides
insights into what we must do differently to address
underrepresentation and its toll (e.g., economic, health)
on America.
BSP is a majority female (70%) and majority minority
(60%) program. Since 1992, 1,400 UCB undergraduates
have participated in BSP. Nine hundred of its graduates
have entered graduate and professional programs.
Funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and
the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the program
aims to increase the diversity of UCB undergraduates
who succeed in their biology majors and related careers.
BSP shares components similar to other science
diversity programs across the U.S., including study
groups, paid research opportunities, academic advising,
and faculty mentoring.
How successful have BSP students been? In comparison
with majority students not in BSP, minority (African
American, Hispanic, and Native American) BSP members
have graduated with biology degrees in equivalent
percentages and with equivalent final University of
California GPAs; this in spite of entering UCB with lower
high school GPAs and lower SATs. By their success in
biology at UCB, BSP minority graduates have attained
parity, closing the minority-majority performance gap.1
So what is the “BSP lesson” that will help us tackle
underrepresentation in STEM? Students are most often
not the problem. They do not need to be made “better.”
Rather it is our programs and institutions that must
change for the better.
Since diversity programs began in the 1960s, the
science diversity community (including BSP) has done
essentially the same traditional list of interventions and
activities with students. The result? A perpetually small
pool of competitively eligible minorities over which we
continue to compete for our graduate programs and
professions.
Some would characterize this as “insanity”—doing the
same things over and over again and expecting different
outcomes. How do we break this cycle and realize our
goal of diversifying our STEM majors and professions?
The key point is that we have done neither (1)
substantive research on what’s working, what’s not, and
for whom, nor (2) have we tied funding of our work to
rigorous assessment/evaluation. Why not?
In my opinion, diversity work is not treated as real
work. Rather it is viewed as retrofit or adjunct to the main
fabric of our disciplines. The “science” of diversity work
is not taken seriously, and is not held to the same high
standards of scholarship as our work at “the bench.”
Accordingly we have limped along uncritically doing
the same things (“the list”) with our students, not
researching what works, what doesn’t, and for whom. And
we continue to receive funds for work based on outcomes
that are not rigorously analyzed or evaluated. In what
legitimate discipline would this occur?
In defense, some would rationalize our behavior in
light of the imprecise “fuzzy” nature of diversity work.
Factors often cited as “out of our control” range from the
“micro” (e.g., students’ level of preparation, motivation,
and/or ability) to the “macro” (e.g., historical inequities in
society and our institutions).
Unfortunately, framed in this way, the focus shifts
outward to what we can’t control, rather than looking at
what we’re doing. Over what do we have control? What
should we do? And, what resources do we need to do it?
First, we must work on understanding our diversity
work through rigorous research that enlists the expertise
of our social science colleagues.
Second, we must hold ourselves accountable for what
we do through assessment/evaluation and tying funding
to student outcomes.
To do this we need resources, not doing more of the
same. We need money, training, and an interdisciplinary
effort that taps the expertise of social scientists to help
us do what we haven’t been trained to do as scientists–to
understand what works, what doesn’t, and for whom.
Finally, and more difficult, we need the personal,
political, and professional will to be self-critical regarding
how our actions may or may not address the problem of
underrepresentation. We must elevate program assessment
and research on the effectiveness of diversity work to the
status of, for example, our studies of cytoskeleton regulation.
Only then will we make STEM majors and careers
accessible to all motivated and interested students. This is
our challenge. This is where our real work lies. ■
—John Matsui
24 ASCB NEWSLETTER AUGUST 2006Reference
1 Matsui, et. al. (2003). Cell Biology Education 2,117–121.
