Equity in Science: Representation, Culture, and the Dynamics of Change in Graduate Education
Equity in Science: Representation, Culture, and the Dynamics of Change in Graduate Education
复制标题
科学公平：研究生教育中的代表性、文化和变革动力
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Laura Kramer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Laura Kramer
在公平的科学：代表性，文化和研究生教育变化的动态，朱莉Posselt专注于在科学研究生教育中追求种族和性别平等的良好做法。她显然在寻找实现公平的方法，这是比多样性和包容性更高、更重要的标准。她谈到了“旋转门”的问题（尽管她没有这样说）。这是一种现象，即项目或机构增加了他们进入群体的融合，通常是通过努力工作，但未能建立必要的公平文化和结构来留住他们。相反，表明多样性的数字是通过持续的积极招聘来保持的。正如她所指出的，这种方法从长远来看是失败的，因为招聘工作缺乏来自现有学生的积极报告。正如招聘从长远来看不可能成功，如果不关注有助于留住和成功的因素，Posselt令人信服地认为，如果只从下而上进行努力，就不可能成功（例如，由教师中被称为多样性领导者的几个人），或自上而下（机构或学科社会领导）。改变必须来自两个方向，以及从“由内而外”-通过改变团体和组织中个体参与者的价值观和观点。她坚持由内而外的改变，是这本书的杰出贡献。她在第三章到第六章的报告中对自下而上、自上而下和由内而外的变革所做的几项研究都很好地支持了这些主题。之所以选择这些例子，是因为它们是离群值，比大多数努力都更成功。在阐明自下而上的变化（以及反对它的力量）的一章中，波塞尔特使用了对基于实地的地球科学课程的观察和访谈，小组水平，并清楚地发展了隐藏课程的沟通方式。与女学生和有色人种学生的访谈带来了丰富的学生的机构和影响因素，何时以及如何处理不公平待遇的决定的理解。在一项比较研究中，采用自上而下的方法，Posselt有效地描述了化学系和心理学系如何试图（以不同的方式和非常不同的结果）拥有更多样化的研究生群体。她对一个在追求公平方面特别成功的应用物理学项目的描述和分析清楚地表明了由内而外的变革方法所需要的。她接着介绍了部门变革以及天文学和物理学学科协会以公平为重点的举措，并指出，如果考虑到其他方面，每一项举措都会更强大。最后一章数据丰富，报告了两个学科协会，波塞尔特曾与公平的努力。一种是自下而上的变革方法，另一种是自上而下的方法;描述了与每种方法相关的问题及其好处。该卷结束时，建议使招生更加公平，并为更好地支持学生，一旦被录取，通过一个整体的方法。Posselt还提供了一组建议
In Equity in Science: Representation, Culture, and the Dynamics of Change in Graduate Education, Julie Posselt focuses on good practices for pursuing racial and gender equity in graduate education in the sciences. She clearly seeks ways to attain equity, a higher and more significant bar than diversity and inclusion. She addresses the problem of ‘‘revolving doors’’ (although she does not refer to it as such). This is the phenomenon of programs or institutions increasing the integration of their entering groups—often through hard work—but failing to build the necessarily equitable cultures and structures to retain them. Instead, numbers indicating diversity are kept up by continual active recruiting. As she notes, this approach fails in the long run, as recruitment efforts are met by the lack of positive reports from current students. Just as recruitment cannot succeed in the long run without attention to factors that contribute to retention and success, Posselt argues convincingly that efforts cannot succeed if they are made solely from the bottom up (e.g., by a few individuals on the faculty who are labelled as diversity leaders), or from the top down (institutional or disciplinary society leadership). Change must come from both directions, as well as from ‘‘the inside out’’—by changes in the values and views of individual participants in the groups and organizations attempting change. Her insistence on change from the inside out is the volume’s outstanding contribution. These themes are well supported by her reports, in Chapters Three through Six, of several studies of efforts at bottom-up, topdown, and inside-out change. The examples have been chosen because they are outliers, succeeding more than most efforts have. In a chapter illuminating bottom-up change (and forces against it), Posselt uses observation and interviews of a field-based geoscience course, small-group level, and clearly develops the ways in which the hidden curriculum is communicated. The interviews with women students and students of color bring a rich understanding of students’ agency and the factors that influence decisions about when and how to deal with inequitable treatment. In a comparative study, taking a top-down approach, Posselt effectively describes how a chemistry department and a psychology department attempted (in different ways and with very different outcomes) to have a more diverse graduate student population. Her description and analysis of an applied physics program that has been particularly successful in its pursuit of equity makes clear what an inside-out change approach entails. She goes on to departmental change and astronomy and physics disciplinary societies’ equity-focused initiatives and makes the point that each initiative is stronger if the other dimensions are also kept in mind. The final data-rich chapter reports on two disciplinary societies with which Posselt has worked on equity efforts. One exemplifies a bottom-up approach to change and the other a top-down; problems associated with each approach as well as their benefits are described. The volume ends with recommendations for making admissions more equitable and for better supporting the students, once admitted, through a holistic approach. Posselt also provides a set of recommendations Reviews 503