The intersectional matrix: Rethinking institutional change for URM women in STEM.

Abstract

This article investigates the persistent challenge of how higher education institutions can support the success of underrepresented minority (URM) women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Our theoretical model centers on intersectionality, and we examine the possibilities and challenges involved in taking an intersectional approach to institutional change for this group. Our National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded study focused on 18 universities that received large NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation (IT) grants (Cohorts 3 [2005] and 4 [2008]). There were two steps to our investigation: (a) an analysis of documents generated by IT programs as a way of identifying and categorizing "mechanisms" for supporting URM women and (b) conversations with IT leaders as a means of documenting the on-the-ground experiences of those working to institutionalize change. Our data yielded valuable results, including the identification of 5 Intersectional Facilitators, key institutional characteristics that enable change for URM women. Our results also show that while efforts intended to support URM women are typically additive (nonintersectional) in approach, when intersectional approaches are taken, most seek to intervene in the experience of individual URM faculty. We hypothesize that increased attentiveness to a "multipronged" approach-including efforts based on recruitment of URM groups and climate initiatives-will increase effectiveness. Comprehensive strategizing across the group, individual, and climate levels-particularly if the 5 Intersectional Facilitators are used to guide strategies-may not only increase intersectional efforts but also synergistically combine, maximizing the combined positive effects of all efforts to support the success of URM women in STEM fields.

Applying an intersectionality lens to expand equity in the geosciences

“…Developing alliances across identities, perhaps through different advocacy groups along the lines of gender (e.g., Association for Women Geoscientists, 2018; Earth Science Women's Network, 2018), disability (e.g., International Association for Geoscience Diversity, 2019), and race (e.g., National Association of Black Geoscientists, n.d.), can build capacity for the development of more attuned strategies to advance equity in participation for different groups in the discipline. Rather than ranking the marginalization of underrepresented groups or centering one group in particular conversations, applying an intersectionality lens should offer opportunities to foster a sense of community across identities, and to build diverse coalitions to advance equity in geosciences (Armstrong & Jovanovic, 2017). In other words, these efforts can follow feminist scholar Audre Lorde's (2007) perspective that "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle, because we do not live singleissue lives … Our struggles are particular, but we are not alone" (p. 138).…”

Embracing diversity and inclusivity in an academic setting: Insights from the Organization for Human Brain Mapping

“…Importantly, these axes, reflecting different identities or minority statuses are not independent, but intersect with one another. As an example, women of color are severely underrepresented in academia, at a much lower ratio than their white female colleagues (Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2017). Moving forward, academic societies, including OHBM, should cater to the needs of their diverse membership, acknowledging intersecting identities and highlighting more representative role models.…”

Who Is Writing About Women in STEM in Higher Education in the United States? A Citation Analysis of Gendered Authorship

“…Women faculty in STEM disciplines must challenge gendered teaching loads (Carrigan et al, 2011), biased tenure and promotion practices (Soto, 2014), workfamily imbalances (Bachman, 2011;Beddoes and Pawley, 2014;Myers, 2015;Tanenbaum, 2015), research (Cozzens, 2008;Howe et al, 2014;Deemer, 2015;Hart, 2016), harmful departmental policies (Holmes et al, 2016), and biased diversity hiring practices (Easley, 2013;King, 2013;Smith et al, 2015;Williams and Ceci, 2015). Women in STEM from underrepresented minorities (Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2017;Leggett-Robinson and Campbell Villa, 2019) and those on the LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual) spectrum (Billimoria and Stewart, 2009;Patridge et al, 2014) have faced additional intersectional barriers, including institutional racism, tokenism, homophobia, and bullying (Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2015;Cascio, 2017).…”