Qualitative Research in STEM: Studies in Equity, Access, and Innovation

Citation

Ruel, S. (2017), "Qualitative Research in STEM: Studies in Equity, Access, and Innovation", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 245-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-09-2016-1414

In Qualitative Research in STEM: Studies in Equity, Access, and Innovation (2017), the editor, Sherry Marx, set out to address two issues. The first was the problem in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Marx defined, right from the beginning, what she believes the problem is within STEM: that despite extensive funding, ethnically diverse women continue to be severely underrepresented in STEM areas (i.e. undergraduate, graduate, and in the workforce). Once she outlined this problem, she went on to introduce to the reader why there needs to be more ethnically and gender-diverse representation within STEM. She then narrowed the focus to STEM education in particular, demonstrating how this particular context can illuminate the experiences of these underrepresented individuals. The second issue she addressed was to introduce the reader to a variety of qualitative methodologies. Marx honed in on the need to use qualitative methods specifically to provide an avenue for studying STEM for underrepresented individuals. To this end, she organized the book into what she calls four different “clusters” (p. 7) based on STEM context, methodologies, and theoretical framework. Part I focused on critical social theories and ethnographies, Part II looked at different theoretical underpinnings to study STEM experiences, Part III centered on indigenous studies and methodologies, and Part IV looked at a showcase of improving math and science education and evaluations. Each author in this edited book was asked to provide a self-reflexive section, presented after their respective studies, to showcase their state of being or their state of becoming, and their experiences within their qualitative research endeavor.

I came at this book from a unique perspective. I am a mother to special needs children who struggle in their educational pursuits. I am STEM-trained and I also work in the male-dominated Canadian space industry. Finally, I am focused on post-positivist ways of studying the STEM business world, embracing critical qualitative methodologies to reveal the hidden in this social STEM reality. Given my positioning, I embraced Marx’s goals and believe them to be laudable. I concur that there is indeed a problem in various STEM areas, whether the context is education or the workforce. I also agree with Marx that there is a problem with the focus on quantitative methodologies to answer the problem within STEM; we definitely need to apply a variety of methods to showcase the problems in STEM fields at different levels. I very much enjoyed the self-reflexive sections that each author provided, bringing forward that whatever method a researcher used there is a level of “messiness” to this endeavor.

The majority of the authors in this edited book met the challenge set out by Marx. The chapters that stood out for me are Tan and Faircloth’s study of refugee children in an afterschool STEM program and Baker’s voyage into miskasowin (his trip into finding his true self and learning to relate). Tan and Faircloth’s chapter inspired me on several levels including challenging me to find engaging science experiments to excite my own children’s science experience. Baker’s chapter, in particular, provided me with valuable insights to the melding of action research, indigenous-based methodology, and auto-ethnographic in such a powerful way that I wanted to send him an e-mail immediately to find out more.

There were, however, two specific areas of concern for me with this book. The first was the unevenness of the chapters. Some chapters, such as Baker’s, were stellar while others I am sad to say should have been excluded. Marx’s attempts to showcase various qualitative methods do not preclude the need to meet the bar, whether it be at the level of writing style or of qualitative analysis. I recognize that the editor’s job is not an easy one, to present a unified whole to answer the questions and challenges set out from the beginning. Some level of consistency must be maintained, however, such that the argument(s) do not get lost in weaker writing or analysis.

The second area of concern rests with the definition of the problem within STEM. This is not necessarily the editor’s or any of the writers’ faults in this book; it is more a philosophical approach to the question of the STEM problem. Yes, the statistics in the USA (and in Canada) demonstrate that the representation of ethnically diverse women is low. The unstated in this problem identification is that the norm that we should strive for is the white man. The average reader coming to the problem in STEM may say “so what?” to this unstated binary representation; however, as one who works and conducts research in this field, I constantly see this perpetuation of the status quo as a hidden assumption that harms rather than illuminates. The social reality of STEM is such that there is a visible segregation where ethnically diverse women are going to or are being driven to “helping” and “nurturing” STEM areas such as medicine, biology, and life sciences. Those that stay within the more white masculine areas, such as engineering, are expected to “fight” for equality and equity to meet the unstated white man’s norm. This, at least to me, was showcased but not explicitly addressed in the first chapter of the book, Quahn’s counter narrative of becoming STEM. The also unstated in this STEM problem definition is, for example, 10 percent of all undergraduates in STEM represent how many people? In the USA, in 2012, this 10 percent represented 10,000 women. While Marx clearly states that the “pipeline” issue is not the only problem, this message is lost in much of the chapters. I am not referring here to the need for a quantity of chapters to move away from the pipeline issue. What I am referring to is that much of STEM arguments – both in academia and in social justice initiatives – are focused on building this pipeline as the solution to all problems in STEM. Notably, what this pipeline argument perpetuates is if we could only get say 30 percent representation, inertia within STEM would be overcome. What about the 10,000 women who are already in the pipeline? The focus on pipeline arguments hides so many problems including what ethnically diverse individuals have to face on a daily basis within STEM. Haverkos’ chapter in particular could have focused on the science teachers who were perpetuating the negative aspirations of girls within science education, as opposed to the “girlhood” focus on drama and what they wear. The science teachers in this study were assisting these young girls’ identities to be non-STEM. What a terrible waste for these young girls, who in Haverkos’ words, would perform the slide (p. 242) away from STEM. but Haverkos’ chapter perpetuated this inevitable slide by removing the focus away from the teachers (and parents) responsibilities with respect to perpetuating the status quo that girls do not belong in STEM.

I wanted this book to send me the message that, as a community focused on STEM education and qualitative methodologies, we can make a difference for the children coming up through the system. Marx almost achieved this. For those researchers focused on STEM, I recommend this book with an eye to the two issues I have highlighted above. There are chapters in this book that can inspire and guide researchers to consider getting more informed on different qualitative methods, that can also expand the idea of how to study STEM experiences beyond the standard homogeneous experiences. There are other chapters that need to be considered carefully, with an eye to clarity of the written word, the methodological rigor, and validity/plausibility/legitimacy (depending on the ontological and epistemological stance taken).