Making Merit Work at the Entrance to the Engineering Workforce: Examining Women’s Experiences and Variations by Race/Ethnicity

Doerr, Katherine; Riegle‐Crumb, Catherine; Russo-Tait, Tatiane; Takasaki, Kara; Sassler, Sharon; Levitte, Yael

doi:10.1007/s11199-021-01233-6

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research also suggests that socialization of STEM faculty in this culture may promote the viewing of successes and failures through meritocratic (and thus, color‐blind) lenses which negatively affects their ability to perceive discrimination and may make them less disposed to support diversity and inclusion efforts (Cech et al, 2018). This socialization process is strong enough that graduates with 4‐year degrees in STEM tend to use meritocratic frames to explain their exclusionary experiences in the workforce (Doerr et al, 2021). Finally, color‐blind approaches in STEM environments obscure the exclusionary racialized experiences of students of color because race is never acknowledged, which further discourages students (Carter et al, 2019; Crenshaw et al, 2019; Johnson, 2007).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM

Russo-Tait

2022

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars across disciplines and throughout PK‐20 education have argued that color‐blind ideology works to perpetuate racial inequities in education via policies, research, curriculum, instruction, and student‐teacher interactions. This study explores an underexamined issue in relation to color‐blind ideology in STEM education. Specifically, it examines how a sample of college science faculty members use color‐blind framings to make sense of the underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students in their fields. Interviews were conducted with 42 professors (majority tenured/tenure‐track, white, male, and continuing generation to college) in a College of Sciences at a research‐intensive, historically white institution in the United States. Thematic analysis showed that while many faculty members implicated systemic racism in their sense making about the underrepresentation of racially minoritized students in STEM, the majority used color‐blind frames (abstract liberalism, cultural racism, and minimization of racism) by focusing on individual behaviors and choices, cultural deficits, under‐preparation, and poverty. Consistent with the research on color‐blind ideology, professors were able to explain racial phenomena without implicating race/racism, which allowed them to absolve themselves from responsibility in addressing racial inequality issues in higher education. Faculty members who made sense of underrepresentation through systemic racism framings tended to recognize that they had a role to play in ameliorating these issues for students of color. These findings have implications for future research and professional development efforts.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM

Russo-Tait

2022

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies suggest that the ideal of meritocracy is entrenched in engineering education and in technology companies (Doerr et al , 2021; Nash and Moore, 2019; Seron et al , 2018). This study confirms these findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It is competence first”: executives navigating gender equality targets and meritocracy in technology companies

Bairoh

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand how executives in technology companies relate to targets for gender equality, especially pertaining to top management. Design/methodology/approach The study draws on 19 interviews of CEOs, senior line managers and HR directors in ten technology companies operating in Finland. The method is (reflexive) thematic analysis. Findings Previous studies on the role of executives in promoting gender equality provide somewhat mixed results: while their role is vital, senior leaders may not be inclined to support gender equality targets and measures. Drawing on critical feminist theorizing, this study identifies three ways in which the executives in technology companies related to gender equality targets: endorsing, negotiating and resisting. However, all these responses were constrained by the executives’ assumption that their companies are meritocratic. The study illustrates how executives’ narrow understanding of gender equality and reliance on the presumably well-working systems, combined with underlying doubts about the competence of women, hinder the advancement of women to top management. Originality/value While previous studies have evaluated targets to increase the number/percentage of women, both in certain “ideal case” companies and in terms of their effectiveness more broadly, this study discusses how technology company executives navigate these targets in relation to women's assumed “competence”.

show abstract

“…All the participants have PhDs in physical science. It is well‐established that the culture of STEM views itself as meritocratic (Cech & Blair‐Loy, 2010; Doerr et al., 2021). Carrying the myth of the meritocracy (Zheng, 2018) into their work lives, inasmuch as the female faculty are aware that they are in a lower‐status job, they also expect that this role will eventually offer some career progression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Flying under the radar”: Postfeminism and teaching in academic science

Doerr

2022

Gender Work & Organization

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neoliberal academia is marked by vertical and horizontal gender segregation, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a particularly concerning case. Women with PhDs are underrepresented, and when they do participate, they are more likely than men to be in teaching-intensive roles. Beyond equality concerns, this is problematic because when women are interpreters rather than producers of disciplinary knowledge, the STEM enterprise remains gender-biased. Using data from a 2-year ethnography with physical science faculty in teaching-intensive roles, this paper argues that gender inequity is reproduced through postfeminist discourses of work-life balance. Participants who are mothers say they are flying under the radar at work. They self-surveille as they engage in both paid labor as university educators and unpaid carework at home. Importantly, when participants challenge hegemonic gender norms, they attract the radar's attention and are sanctioned. This study contributes to a growing understanding of how and why women are marginalized in STEM careers. Women with science PhDs fulfill their university's teaching mission with minimal support for the implied compensation of work-life balance, leaving the institutional structures which privilege men's participation in STEM research intact.

show abstract

Making Merit Work at the Entrance to the Engineering Workforce: Examining Women’s Experiences and Variations by Race/Ethnicity

Cited by 15 publications

References 82 publications

Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM

Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/ethnic underrepresentation in STEM

“It is competence first”: executives navigating gender equality targets and meritocracy in technology companies

“Flying under the radar”: Postfeminism and teaching in academic science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About