This systematic review and meta-analysis examined recent articles that have used the 1995 Draw-A-Scientist Checklist (DAST-C). This study was focused on the current state of students' stereotypes of scientists and the appropriateness of the DAST-C as a tool to assess these perceptions. Articles included in the review were published between 2003 and 2018, resulting in n = 30 studies. Mean results across studies are presented to describe current stereotypes of scientists, and the current format of the DAST-C is evaluated. Findings suggest that students' perceptions of scientists have largely remained consistent across time: scientists are still perceived as Caucasian, middle-aged or elderly males who wear lab coats and work indoors. However, while the DAST-C is a generally appropriate measure to assess students' perceptions of scientists, recommended revisions to the DAST-C could assist in capturing more modern scientist stereotypes and culturally bound perceptions of scientists. K E Y W O R D SDraw-A Scientist Checklist, meta-analysis, science stereotypes, systematic review 56 | FERGUSON aNd LEZOTTE

No abstract

The normative culture of engineering has been described as privileging certain forms of knowledge, being hyperfocused on technical content, cultivating a chilly climate for individuals with excluded identities, embracing deficit model thinking, and promoting competition over collaboration. These factors perpetuate an engineering "ideal" that has excluded diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, abilities, backgrounds, and worldviews. In response, engineering units across the United States have focused on broadening participation and making the engineering culture more inclusive. However, little is known about how diversity and inclusion (D&I) is conceptualized by those that lead such reform efforts. This phenomenological study examined how three teams funded by National Science Foundation conceptualize D&I. Interviews with eleven participants were analyzed through a critical sensemaking framework, which considers institutional context and norms along with individuals' personal experiences. Understanding these conceptualizations is critical, as it provides insight into how and why teams might approach engineering D&I work. As findings show, normative conceptualizations of D&I are sometimes perpetuated even by teams tasked with transformative change, suggesting that there is much work to be done.

Stephanie is a Ph.D. candidate studying postsecondary and higher education. Using organizational theories, she examines systems and structures that contribute to the oppression and symbolic violence of minoritized and underrepresented students. Her dissertation focuses on diversity and inclusion in engineering.

The assumption that research is out-of-reach, irrelevant, or unusable for practitioners has been a theme echoed throughout academia. Research alliances such as Research-Practice Partnerships (RPP) attempt to alleviate this problem by having researchers, practitioners, and/or community-based organizations form a collaborative partnership that uses research to solve tangible problems of practice. Previous works have highlighted the complexities inherent with forming and maintaining these long-term partnerships including politics, trust building, time, and available resources. In this paper, we engage in reflective analysis of our own RPP around three key elements we believe are at the heart of RPPs: politicized trust, mutualism, and use of research. This paper illustrates successes and points of failure in each of these areas, which have been previously unconnected in RPP literature. We conclude with recommendations for school and university partners and future research on RPPs.