With Big Data Comes Big Responsibilities for Science Equity Research

Abstract

Our ability to collect and access large quantities of data over the last decade has been revolutionary for many social sciences. Suddenly, it is possible to measure human behavior, performance, and activity on an unprecedented scale, opening the door to fundamental advances in discovery and understanding. Yet such access to data has limitations that, if not sufficiently addressed and explored, can result in significant oversights. Here we discuss recent research that used data from a large global sample of high school students to demonstrate, paradoxically, that in nations with higher gender equality, fewer women pursued science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees than would be expected based on aptitude in those subjects. The reasons for observed patterns is central to current debates, with frequent disagreement about the nature and magnitude of problems posed by the lack of female representation in STEM and the best ways to deal with them. In our international efforts to use big data in education research, it is necessary to critically consider its limitations and biases.

Antiracist Opportunities in the Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education : Considerations for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

“…The primary purpose of this literature review is to use Kendi’s antiracist framework ( 3 ) to identify considerations and opportunities for growth among published works in JMBE. Although bright spots of antiracist ideals exist in JMBE, such as institutional- and program-level approaches and the integration of diverse history, storytelling, empathy, and critical consciousness ( 1 , 2 , 15 – 39 ), there remain opportunities for reflection. The intent of highlighting opportunities for growth is to further our commitment to systemic change among all positions of power in science education, from graduate assistants and adjunct faculty to department leads, institutional administrators, and even journal editors and grant-funding agencies.…”

“…Sometimes, science education research aims to dismantle systemic issues through liberating practices, as advocated by Kendi ( 3 ), but the purpose of the research and the results are not interpreted as intended by all readers. For example, Ballen and Holmegaard ( 16 ) describe a novel article by Stoet and Geary ( 64 ) that reported that girls in more gender-equal countries are less likely to pursue STEM careers. The authors appropriately postulate that this observation may be due to STEM climate, inclusivity, or cultural incongruence; however, the media shifted the narrative to blame girls for their internal lack of interest in STEM ( 65 ).…”

“…The authors appropriately postulate that this observation may be due to STEM climate, inclusivity, or cultural incongruence; however, the media shifted the narrative to blame girls for their internal lack of interest in STEM ( 65 ). This is problematic because the culture of science is exclusive in explicit and subtle ways, and these observations should not be blamed on the subjugated, as several JMBE authors have discussed ( 2 , 16 , 20 , 38 , 61 ). While this is a secondary source error and easier to dismiss as “not the scientists’ problem,” our community, from individual contributors to journals, should be cognizant of perpetuating subjugation in primary literature as well.…”