Moving beyond the boilerplate: Reflections on equity‐centered reviewing for granting organizations

Abstract

This essay centers on the voices of leading scholars in science and STEM education on how equity can and should be centered in reviewing proposals for granting organizations. As the decisions made as a result of the reviewing process significantly impact the future directions of the field, we recognize the urgency in considering how equity is considered in this process. Through their experiences, four researchers offer the science and STEM community a call to action. The scholars interviewed highlighted that equitable reviewing and funding research and professional development will require changes within the science education and STEM funding ecosystem. Three overarching themes include (1) changing the ideologies and culture of science and STEM education research funding will require centering the needs of the communities being served; (2) institutions and granting organizations should adopt equity‐focused and holistic rubrics and models; and 3) we each have an individual responsibility to employ equity during the review process. Thus, this essay has the potential to both inspire and provide explicit examples of how we can all center equity as we strive to transform the future of science and STEM education.

Complex pathways within nested systems: Exploring approaches to centering equity in peer review

“…They describe the ways in which journals, like other organizations, tend to ignore the racialized consequences of these actions. As another example, Marshall and Salter (2022) describe the biases that occur when reviewers may give a pass to someone that they already know, assuming that the author has sound arguments without necessarily examining them thoroughly. When panels do not have sufficient diverse representation, such processes result in inequities.…”

“…Another issue that Marshall and Salter's (2022) essay raises is that focusing on reducing the biases of a reviewer is not going to address the main problem if scholars of color have not been given adequate opportunities before the point of submission. They discuss that there are institutional resources that not everyone can access and unspoken norms that not everyone knows due to disparities in access to mentoring specifically for grant proposals.…”

“…In addition, the term “equity” can sometimes be used as a signifier or a claim without much substance behind it. As Marshall and Salter (2022) point out in this series of essays, equity can sometimes be written into a proposal without much depth, in ways that they refer to as “boilerplate language”. At such times, the term equity is an “add on” or a discursive move toward a claim to legitimacy, rather than fully integrated into the proposal.…”

“…Among other possibilities, the essays in this section explore actions that include resources, support, and engagement of journals and funding agencies with DEI goals. As one example, Marshall and Salter's (2022) essay explores how racially marginalized grant writers would benefit from the support of other researchers who have navigated the systems. In addition, they describe that mentoring and other types of support need to be implemented by universities.…”

“…For example, even if a review for a manuscript is fair and unbiased, inequities could be perpetuated if the research processes themselves are not conducted ethically and collaboratively with communities. Marshall and Salter's (2022) essay explores the ways in which the grant review processes could better center equity in the science education field overall, such as by examining whether funded research is conducted in partnership with communities, whether the researchers are connected to the settings for research, and whether there is a substantial exploration of equity within the proposal. By considering equitable collaborations and connections with communities in evaluating proposals, the peer‐review process for grants can support equity within the science education field generally.…”