Summary

1. Key concepts:

   1. “Equity work is reconfiguring structures, cultures, and systems to empower marginalized groups and close disparities” (p. 2).

   2. “Culture is a system of inherited values, goals, and language that provides members with a shared sense of who they are and common purpose for action” (p. 3).

   3. “Complex systems are, by definition, composed of many interrelated parts that have relationships, dependencies, and interactions, both internally and with the environment” (p. 12).

2. Equity efforts in science benefit when scientists have a better understanding of culture than is typically provided in their training. Cultures in STEM and values that are common to them (e.g., meritocracy and objectivity) have been identified as serious impediments to equity because they are used to legitimize unequal outcomes.

3. Graduate education is a worthy focus of change if you care about the future of science because

   1. it is increasingly important to labor market opportunities in science,

   2. it manifests deep and long standing intersectional inequities, and

   3. it is the site where the next generation of scientists is socialized.

4. Systems thinking offers a useful framework for thinking about change in STEM graduate education because multiple areas of practice (e.g., teaching, admissions, mentoring), multiple levels of activity (e.g., individual, department, disciplinary society), multiple communities and identities (e.g., racial, gender, ability), and multiple goals (e.g., diversity, equity, inclusion) are all in need of change. We need theory that can speak to this complexity. That’s where chapter 2 comes in.

Summary

1. The chapter introduces three perspectives for managing the complexity of equity-based change: small wins, quantum theory, and symbolic boundaries.

2. Small wins are an important component to the change process, but without coordinated effort, they may not be sustained and can turn into incrementalism. The most useful small wins are those that change how people think, in ways that also change how they are likely then to act.

3. Systems thinking via analogies from quantum theory offer tools to think about and manage relational complexities in equity-based change:

• The foci of change efforts must include both human interactions, attitudes, and practices, as well as the technologies we create like policies, algorithms, and tools, software, & structures. Barad & I describe this as a “post-humanist” point of view; that is, it includes but is not limited to directly human activity.

• The process of change involves human agency (i.e., freedom to make choices) not as individual but entangled. Our actions are always creating the context for others’ actions, and long-term ripple effects can emanate from seemingly small actions;

• We see the non-linearity of change through the lens of quantum theory, relative to the metaphors for change that classical dynamics provide: inertia, momentum, trajectory. Some change is more linear than others;

• Our embeddedness in change is apparent when we remember that just as we are part of the reality that we strive to understand as scholars, we are part of the groups we are trying to change. Our identities matter, and the very same barriers to equity that hold back our organizations can affect our change efforts.

4. Symbolic boundaries are distinctions that we use to “categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space” and are salient to cultural change. Changing who and what is understood to “fit” certain categories of value (i.e., what counts as an admissible student, what is good mentoring, what acceptable representation statistics look like for our field) is often necessary, because our traditional standards are exclusionary by privileging groups who are overrepresented.

Summary

1. This chapter draws attention to the power of micro-level interactions in science as a factor in creating, maintaining, and disrupting inequitable power dynamics. Everyday communication patterns are critical to the cultures of research and learning environments, and how we define what counts as acceptable in our interactions affects influence, safety, and belonging. Often these are gendered, racialized, and associated with other social identities.

2. The focus on geoscience fieldwork also highlights how temporal and spatial aspects of a science work environment shape what is thought of acceptable relational boundaries. In good ways and bad, the erosion of usual boundaries on the use of time & space in the field encourages norms of togetherness and informality. “Many enjoy this way of life, but others miss the clarity, structure, and personal time and space. The relaxed boundaries and pressure to ‘roll with it’ muddle and complicate what count as shared expectations” (p. 40).

3. Physically challenging conditions in fieldwork add a norm of toughness. Alcohol is understood as a reward for toughness and as an aid in social interactions that reflect their norm of togetherness. Participants recognized it could be a double-edged sword that further adds to risks of safety and inclusion.

4. Research found gendered patterns of communication including a) women’s concerns going inadequately addressed, b) men being centered & women being marginalized in discussions and seminars, and c) men challenging instructor authority. When unchecked, graduate students of all genders implicitly learn gendered communication is normal; it is part of the “hidden curriculum” about STEM culture that graduate education provides. Many women experiencing these types of interactions questioned themselves, self-silenced, or accepted a marginal position, though some maneuvered around dominant communication patterns.

5. The case of this graduate-level geology field course demonstrates a broader pattern: all disciplines have styles of interactions that are part of their culture, and that are worth evaluating as part of the cultural change process. Some of the patterns observed in this class are present in other STEM fields as well. Specific changes needed include: a) professional development and bystander intervention, b) reducing barriers to speaking up, and c) leaders advocating for communication norms that reflect commitments to equity and inclusion.

Summary

1. This chapter argues representation is but a starting point in tracking progress toward equity. To obtain a fuller picture of what is happening, we need to look beyond the numbers to the trajectories of organizations over time and the quality of interactions, experiences, and whose interests are privileged.

2. Through comparison of psychology and chemistry departments that both achieved better-than-average representation of typically excluded groups, we see how different foci (i.e., diversity, equity) and strategies for action can yield more and less sustainable outcomes.

3. In both departments, shame with their performance motivated change (i.e., gender of faculty they were promoting, race of students they were admitting). Improving gender & racial diversity outcomes is increasingly part of what makes a university, department, or discipline legitimate (i.e., worthy of respect). Negative attention drawn to this aspect of organizational performance can light a fire.

4. However, the process of change was different between these departments: “Chemistry’s reputation changed slowly, one professor at a time, as it turned around its approach and ability to recruit, retain, and promote women faculty. Psychology’s intense and immediate focus on transforming the public image via the website exemplifies how diversity work can easily become a matter of impression management and performance… while unresolved cultural debates and avoidance of the thorniest issues marked the backstage of life” (p. 85).

5. In sum, an organization has to do more than get busy changing their image toward recruitment that changes representation. There needs to be substantive, coordinated effort that may not be seen publicly. Key actions include a) making it normal to be improving multiple areas of policy and practice simultaneously, b) holding people accountable for the quality of their teaching, advising, and lab supervision, c) dedicating resources and rewards for work in these areas, and d) vocal support from leadership at all levels. Without these, change is not likely to touch the climate of micro-contexts like classrooms, labs, and advising relationships that are important to graduate students’ experiences and outcomes.

6. Chemistry exemplifies how systematically making change in one area can develop confidence and skill that makes other policy change less difficult. Confidence gained by improving faculty recruitment and support gave them confidence to address these processes for graduate students. Experience working on gender inequities gave them skill to face racial inequity.

7. Developing collective responsibility is more useful than relying on individual diversity champions. Effective use of institutional data and sensemaking about past efforts can also help motivate change by targeting specific actions needed. Tracking data can also situate the present in a longer organizational history.

Summary

1. This chapter presents a case study of a PhD program that has, over the last 25 years, greatly increased its racial diversity to become a leader in the field. Central to how they did so was by creating an inclusive culture, and defining itself against a typical physics program.

2. Research identified specific types of change made over time, common to which was a “willingness to erase, relocate, or deactivate boundaries that had implicitly created barriers to access and inclusion for underrepresented students” (p. 89).

   1. It institutionalized a flexible, interdisciplinary paradigm that privileged application of physics to other fields. Students of color and women spoke about the desirability of a program that actively valued the application of disciplinary knowledge, specifically to problems with social consequences.

   2. It reformed admissions and recruitment to align with a distinctive, more inclusive view of the ideal student as “intellectually adventurous.” Leaders de-emphasized elements of an applicant profile that are conventionally valued in physics, but disproportionately found among already overrepresented populations. They created a bridge program, and developed respectful relationships with minority serving institutions, from which they recruited PhD students.

   3. It empowered administrative staff of color as cultural translators across racial differences and across faculty-student status. Every person interviewed cited the importance of staff in recruiting students of color, supporting enrolled students directly, and/or helping faculty and program leaders understand Black student engagement. Cultural translation was also critical to resolving misunderstandings before they escalated.

   4. It created close, trusting relationships (i.e., thinking of themselves as a family) that “would set their climate apart from the more hierarchical, impersonal dynamics they say in other physics programs” (p. 89). Every single person interviewed cited the ethic of care as important to the department’s culture, and every student mentioned it in reference to their decision to enroll and/or their satisfaction with their education.

3. The themes described above can also be linked to the principles of universal design, particularly equitable use, flexibility in use, simple/intuitive use, and perceptible information. “Addressing the same rigidity, complexity, and opacity that present physical barriers can also be applied to policy and practice to improve the overall accessibility and inclusiveness of organizations” (p. 108).

Summary

1. The book now moves from analyzing meso-level departmental equity efforts to the macro-level, through analysis of the organizational cultures of two disciplines’ equity efforts.

2. Graduate education is known for its “dual institutionalization.” That is, it is organized by universities/ departments, as well as by disciplines.

3. Disciplines can influence field-wide movement toward equitable training in ways that align with institutional isomorphism, defined as “conditions under which organizations in a field tend to converge on new models” (p. 114)

   1. Coercive isomorphism “describes tendencies of people and organization to conform to the expectations of high-status resource providers” (p. 114). Disciplinary societies & associations can effectively regulate or enforce equity-advancing behaviors by making them a condition of receiving resources such accreditation, awards, or grants.

   2. Normative isomorphism includes “professional socialization processes [that] shape what whole new generations of members understand to be acceptable standards of practice” (p. 114). Disciplinary societies have convening power through meetings and discourse-shaping power through their advocacy.

   3. Mimetic isomorphism “captures the tendency of people and organizations to model their behavior on the most powerful within a field” (p. 115). The IGEN pilot led by the American Physical Society carefully selected six large, respected, selective, PhD programs with a recognition that if they changed their practices to become more equitable, that other programs that look to them as examples might also make such changes.

4. Broadly speaking, the organizational cultures of equity work in astronomy and physics correspond to what Berquist & Pawlak call advocacy and managerial cultures. These are bottom-up and top-down oriented, respectively, and both are needed to overcome institutional inertia: “Advocacy can point out problems and recommend solutions, while managerialism has a role in implementing change” (p. 141). In the long term, the learning focus inherent in developmental cultures, may also have a role, in helping sustain change. See also Chapter 4 on the role of organizational learning in achieving a virtuous cycle toward equity.

Summary

1. This final chapter presents themes that cut across the case studies. It synthesizes lessons in support of change efforts present and future. Across all settings studied:

   1. There was at least one cultural translator, who “used the language and sensibilities of the existing culture to to communicate and collaborate across boundaries-- decoding, valuing, and applying new perspectives.

   2. There was change to the criteria and processes used for admissions. For representation to change, evaluation and selection systems need updating to broaden what counts as merit.

   3. In programs that sustained diversity over time and moved toward more equitable practices and inclusive cultures, faculty and other leaders

      • took seriously the quality of faculty-student interactions

      • created holistic sets of policies & practices for supporting students.

      • In addition, leaders displayed what Estela Bensimon calls equity- mindedness and Paulo Freire calls critical consciousness, “the ability to recognize and analyze systems of power and the commitment to intervene in those systems in order to change them” (p. 170).

2. The chapter also argues that we must begin to incorporate equity work into our expectations of what it means to do good science. This will take some cultural retooling on the part of most scientists: “learning new cultural knowledge (e.g., concepts, skills, practices, norms) in order to broaden the boundaries of effective professional practice.” Effectively selecting, serving, and conducting research with a more diverse population will take additional, different tools than those with which most graduate programs equip their students.

3. In any change process, resistance is to be expected. Perspective for some common arguments is presented on pages 160-163.

4. The standpoints we hold, the focus of our efforts, our priorities, and the theories we bring to change are four factors that can affect how different people view the same collaborative equity effort. In addition, two common sources of tension in collaborative change work are defining what success means beyond participation metrics and defining standards for leadership and decision making. Awareness that these can become issues is the first step to preventing them from undermining the work.