Defining the Flow—Using an Intersectional Scientific Methodology to Construct a VanguardSTEM Hyperspace

Abstract

#VanguardSTEM is an online community and platform that centers women, girls, and non-binary people of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. We publish original and curated content, using cultural production to include a multiplicity of identities as worthy of recognition and thus redefine STEM identity and belonging. #VanguardSTEM is rooted firmly in Queer, Black feminisms which delineate the experiences and critiques of Black women matter and that these insights can foster a restorative and regenerative construction of the cultures in which we exist. In describing how #VanguardSTEM descended from counterspaces, we draw on speculative fiction to define a #VanguardSTEM hyperspace as a fluid “place-time” that is born digital and enabled by social media, but materializes in the physical world for specific purposes. As Black women in STEM, we consider how our situated knowledges and scientific expertise inform our process. We propose an intersectional scientific methodology to address the influence of embodied observation, embedded context and collective impact on scientific inquiry. Through #VanguardSTEM, we assert, without apology, the right of Black, Indigenous, women of color to self-advocate by fully representing ourselves, our STEM identities and interests, without assimilation.

Expanding the landscape of opportunity: Professional societies support early-career researchers through community programming and peer coaching.

“…We suggest that institutions fund and provide support for professional society programs that enhance the career advancement of marginalized people. This shift will require institutions to have policies, incentives, and the capital to generate communities of scholars that can foster belonging and career advancement (Estrada, Eroy-Reveles, et al, 2018; Gibbs, 2018; Isler et al, 2021; Schell et al, 2020). For example, we recommend peer coaching circles be built into cluster hires, training grants, and outreach activities dedicated to advancing early-career scientists.…”

“…Evaluation of the impact of peer coaching should include its ability to reduce barriers that impede career advancement and produce outward-facing activities led by peer coaching circles (e.g., Twitter campaigns, as we described earlier) in addition to social and interpersonal metrics. This inclusion of social and interpersonal metrics in professional development programs is crucial because women and minoritized scientists cite interpersonal or social factors (as opposed to skills) as the primary reason for exiting the academy (Gibbs, 2018; Isler et al, 2021; Mason et al, 2009; Advance NPA, 2011; Olson et al, 2020; Ong et al, 2018).…”

“…institutional support, disproportionate service requests, citation biases, funding gaps, pay disparities, lack of retirement and other benefits, family obligations, motherhood penalty, job insecurity, frequent relocation stress, competitive job markets, gender-biased discrimination, racial inequities, interpersonal factors, minority tax, and lack of mentoring (Brown, 2017;Campbell & Rodríguez, 2019;Chatterjee & Werner, 2021;Feldon et al, 2015;Isler et al, 2021;Jimenez et al, 2019;Kricorian et al, 2020;Lambert et al, 2020;Munton, 1990;Nauman et al, 2020;Advance NPA, 2011;Ong et al, 2018;Rodríguez et al, 2021;Taffe & Gilpin, 2021;Wang & Ackerman, 2020;Winkle-Wagner, 2009;Witteman et al, 2019). Simply acknowledging and raising awareness of these biases and disadvantages is insufficient in mitigating their adverse effects.…”

“…Women and minoritized people have made considerable contributions to comparative psychology, yet their inclusion and promotion in the academy lag behind their representation in the general population. Marginalized scholars are less likely to advance academically than their majority colleagues who are of comparable seniority (Pickett, 2017; Stevens et al, 2021), in large part due to factors such as social isolation, disparities in network access, inequitable institutional support, disproportionate service requests, citation biases, funding gaps, pay disparities, lack of retirement and other benefits, family obligations, motherhood penalty, job insecurity, frequent relocation stress, competitive job markets, gender-biased discrimination, racial inequities, interpersonal factors, minority tax, and lack of mentoring (Brown, 2017; Campbell & Rodríguez, 2019; Chatterjee & Werner, 2021; Feldon et al, 2015; Isler et al, 2021; Jimenez et al, 2019; Kricorian et al, 2020; Lambert et al, 2020; Munton, 1990; Nauman et al, 2020; Advance NPA, 2011; Ong et al, 2018; Rodríguez et al, 2021; Taffe & Gilpin, 2021; Wang & Ackerman, 2020; Winkle-Wagner, 2009; Witteman et al, 2019). Simply acknowledging and raising awareness of these biases and disadvantages is insufficient in mitigating their adverse effects.…”

Making science communication inclusive: an exploratory study of choices, challenges and change mechanisms in the United States from an emerging movement

“…Yet, we are seeing a paradigm shift. A growing body of literature has explored science communication and publics through theories of social justice [e.g., Burris, 2019;Callwood, Weiss, Hendricks & Taylor, 2022;Dawson, 2014Dawson, , 2017Dawson, , 2018Dawson, , 2019Habibi Doroh & Streicher, 2021;Honma, 2017;Isler et al, 2021;Jones, 2021;Landis et al, 2020;Márquez & Porras, 2020;Nadkarni et al, 2019;Rasekoala & Orthia, 2020]. In fact, equitable, asset-based [Yosso, 2005] science communication has taken place in contexts well beyond the academy for generations [Finlay et al, 2021;Kankaria, Jarreau, Manna, Rasekoala & Bonea, 2022].…”