National Academies Press: OpenBook

Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (2012)

Chapter: 5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

« Previous: 4 DAY 2 PLENARY
Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×

5

BREAKOUT SESSION 2
DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

The aim of the second day’s breakout groups was to identify theoretical frameworks that might guide research to answer questions raised the day before. Attendees in the four randomly assigned groups were asked to

  • identify challenges,
  • characterize how they are manifested in the target populations,
  • examine underlying mechanisms and remediation strategies, and
  • provide models of innovative and successful approaches to overcoming the challenges.

Breakout group participants were invited to provide a graphical representation of their proposed frameworks.

Breakout Group 2A

This group developed a graphic of a circle with four quadrants corresponding to the major areas of inquiry and showing relevant theoretical frameworks (Figure 4). The group members identified a challenge—lack of culturally responsive faculty (Quadrant 1)—to illustrate application of the framework to the academic performance of minority males at the undergraduate level. The challenge is manifested by toxic school cultures that marginalize minority males (Quadrant 2). The underlying mechanisms of the challenge include social conformity and lack of incentives for change, and possible remediation strategies are faculty training and implementation of equity audits (Quadrant 3). Two models to address the challenge are replication of support structures shown to be effective at HBCUs and the use of culturally responsive activities (e.g., equity scorecards) to incentivize change (Quadrant 4).

Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×

image

FIGURE 4. Breakout Group 2A’s theoretical metaframework to address the challenge of having few culturally responsive faculty at the undergraduate level.

Breakout Group 2B

This group developed a table with four rows corresponding to the major areas of inquiry, with accompanying relevant theoretical frameworks (Table 2) that are applicable for both precollege and postsecondary levels. For example, in the area of “Identify Challenges” the suggested frameworks are all in the broad category of Human Ecology, including attributional work (e.g., the work of Claude Steele) and Kurt Lewin’s approach to social psychology.

Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×

TABLE 2. Metaframework Linking Major Areas of Inquiry with Theoretical Frameworks

Identify Challenges Human Ecology:
  • Attributional (encompasses Claude Steele’s work)
  • Margaret Beale-Spencer’s PVEST Theory (1997)
  • Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Theory (1972)
  • Kurt Lewin (social psychology)
Characterize Manifestations in Target Population
  • Identify Theories
  • - Race-based Identity Development theories including social construction of masculinity
  • - Gender-based theories
  • - Identity Development (Wortham)
  • ■ Adolescent Identity Development Theories
  • ■ Respectability
  • Agency/Self-Efficacy/Self-Concept
  • - Bandura, Mendosa, and Steele/Aaronson
Underlying Mechanisms (Models of Intervention)
  • Discipline-based Intervention
  • - Subject Matter Learning
  • Organizational Theory
  • - Organizational Psychology/Organizational Behavior
  • Distributed intelligence with polled knowledge
  • Social supportive models
Successful Examples
  • Macro Examples:
  • - The Algebra Project (Bob Moses)
  • ■ Organizational Psychology/Behavior Theories
  • - The Meyerhoff Program (Hrabowski)
  • ■ Social Supportive Theories
  • - DNIMAS (Norfolk State)
  • - McNair Scholars / Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)
  • - Others (e.g., program models for women in S&E)
  • Micro (considered as concepts):
  • - Models of Effort (Lauren Resnick)
  • - Models of Aspiration

SOURCE: Participants in Breakout Group 2B.

Breakout Group 2C

Members of this group developed the graphic shown in Figure 5, which, unlike the others, is not tied to the four major research areas. Rather, it considers the individual in various contexts and interactions. The framework places particular emphasis on context as created by interactions among various metatheoretical frameworks related to an individual’s social and cultural competency (e.g., one’s identity, race and ethnicity, and social status).

Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×

image

FIGURE 5. Theoretical framework connecting individuals, their interactions, and context. Developed by participants in Breakout Group 2C.

Breakout Group 2D

This breakout group approached its task by developing a series of questions tied to the four major areas of inquiry (Box 2).

Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×

BOX 2: Key Framework Questions for Each Major Area of Inquiry

Identify challenges:

  • Do male views of masculinity play into their decisions to pursue (or to not pursue) specific fields in STEM?
  • What role do masculinity and gender play in the pursuit of science (e.g., the “feminization of science”; characterization of disciplines as “soft” vs. “hard”)?
  • What can be learned from a review of the data on students being “pushed out” or transferring from one science field to another? What role does microaggression play?
  • How might deficit cognitive frame theory,a specifically with regards to faculty attitudes, improve understanding of the experience of minority males in STEM?

Manifestations (characterize how challenges are manifested in target populations):

  • How might a review of cumulative advantage inform efforts to understand the experience of minority males? What are some best practices for creating a system of cumulative advantage in STEM for minority males? Are there different models at different educational levels?

Mechanisms (examine underlying mechanisms and remediation strategies):

  • What layers of context should be taken into consideration in developing complex and comprehensive models of research interventions that include attention to individuals and families? How such models might be informed by a review of social, racial, policy, and ecological frameworks?

Success models (provide models of innovative and successful approaches to overcoming the challenges):

How might the following models (in whole or in part) improve understanding of what works to enhance the academic and career prospects of minority males?

  • Resiliency and coping models
  • Critical race theory (CRT), specifically with respect to interest convergenceb
  • “Academic identification,” based on how well male students perform academically
  • “Self theory,” based on encouragement of students to see themselves in STEM programs and careers

aAccording to Estela Maria Bensimon (“Closing the Achievement Gap in Higher Education: An Organizational Learning Perspective” in New Directions for Higher Education, No. 131, Fall 2005, p. 103), deficit cognitive frame theory “focus[es] on stereotypical characteristics associated with the culture of disadvantage and poverty.”

bAccording to interest convergence theory, substantive gains for minorities will occur only when they converge with the interests of the majority. See Derrick Bell’s seminal article in the Harvard Law Review 518 (1980).

Source: Participants in Breakout Group 2D.

Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"5 BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DISCUSSIONS OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13502.
×
Page 19
Next: 6 BREAKOUT SESSION 3: DISCUSSIONS OF POTENTIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES »
Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $28.00 Buy Ebook | $22.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

On August 8-12, 2010 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), convened the Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), following the release of several reports highlighting the educational challenges facing minority males. The NSF recognized the need to gather input from research communities that focus on minority males about how to frame investigations of gender-based factors that impact learning and choice in STEM education (both at the precollege and higher education levels) and the workforce for minority males. There was particular interest in framing a research agenda to study how interactions between minority males and societal and educational systems (both formal and informal) encourage or discourage the young men's interest and persistence in STEM. In addition, NSF hoped to gain community input to inform the parameters of a future NSF research program that could effectively address minority male participation in STEM. The Colloquy was held at the Mt. Washington Conference Center in Baltimore, Maryland, with approximately 40 participants, most of them researchers in education, psychology, sociology, mathematics, and physics.

Colloquy on Minority Males in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics presents a summary of the Colloquy's breakout and plenary discussions, which addressed (a) research questions articulated in the breakout groups together with theories and methodologies to begin to address these questions; and (b) considerations for a potential research solicitation for the NSF, with major areas of inquiry concerning access, participation, and success for minority males in STEM.

This report reflects the views of the individuals who participated in the plenary and breakout groups. It has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies' Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!