Those from low socioeconomic status (SES) often lack access to public space and, when they have access, they are often discouraged from using public space. Scholars from human geography and related fields have argued that this limits engagement in civic life and undermines sense of belonging in one’s community. In the present work, we consider whether lower-SES students face this predicament in higher education, particularly at elite public institutions. Across four studies, we find that, compared with higher-SES students, lower-SES students use public space on campus less—iconic public space in particular—and this can mediate the relationship between SES and sense of belonging at the University. We also find that experimentally increasing students’ use of public space can reduce and even close SES gaps in felt belonging. Taken together, the present studies suggest that use of public space matters for belonging and for understanding gaps in belonging. This work contributes to our understanding of SES disparities in higher education. More generally, it illustrates the importance of public space.

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

Objectives We examined undergraduate STEM students’ experiences during Spring 2020 when universities switched to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we sought to understand actions by universities and instructors that students found effective or ineffective, as well as instructor behaviors that conveyed a sense of caring or not caring about their students’ success. Methods In July 2020 we conducted 16 focus groups with STEM undergraduate students enrolled in US colleges and universities (N = 59). Focus groups were stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Content analyses were performed using a data-driven inductive approach. Results Participants (N = 59; 51% female) were racially/ethnically diverse (76% race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white) and from 32 colleges and universities. The most common effective instructor strategies mentioned included hybrid instruction (35%) and use of multiple tools for learning and student engagement (27%). The most common ineffective strategies mentioned were increasing the course workload or difficulty level (18%) and use of pre-recorded lectures (15%). The most common behaviors cited as making students feel the instructor cared about their success were exhibiting leniency and/or flexibility regarding course policies or assessments (29%) and being responsive and accessible to students (25%). The most common behaviors cited as conveying the instructors did not care included poor communication skills (28%) and increasing the difficulty of the course (15%). University actions students found helpful included flexible policies (41%) and moving key services online (e.g., tutoring, counseling; 24%). Students felt universities should have created policies for faculty and departments to increase consistency (26%) and ensured communication strategies were honest, prompt, and transparent (23%). Conclusions To be prepared for future emergencies, universities should devise evidence-based policies for remote operations and all instructors should be trained in best practices for remote instruction. Research is needed to identify and ameliorate negative impacts of the pandemic on STEM education.

The introduction to this book begins with a detailed description of what news fixers are and how their work has evolved over time. Since the book focuses primarily on news fixing in the 21st century, the introduction historicizes the figure of the fixer, illuminating the fixer’s connections to the interpreters or guides hired by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists of past centuries. This brief but necessary historicization is firmly rooted within the critical framework of postcolonial studies, a theoretical lens that helps me explain the deeply entrenched tradition of colonial dependence on regionally specific knowledge—knowledge that unfortunately did not prevent the misrepresentation and exploitation of the people living in these other places. The introduction then moves to an examination of the news fixers’ current role within the larger ecosystem of international reporting. Building off the rich literature found in the field of journalism studies, which examines the various elements of the labor of foreign correspondence, the introduction will show that a space must be made within journalism scholarship for the study of news fixers. What is more, the field of global journalism ethics also has much to gain from a closer examination of these locally based media employees.

No abstract