Search results

This study aims to explore how science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) graduate students’ experiences with and conceptualizations of racism can more clearly expose the current racial climate across multiple academic institutions.

A mixed-method approach using a single online questionnaire consisting of open-ended and Likert scale questions about their perceptions of the racial climate in their department was completed by 34 graduate students of different races and STEMM disciplines.

Results from this study suggested that graduate students, regardless of race, consistently perceive STEMM as colorblind. The results also suggest that experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination is potentially predictive of perceptions of negative social support. Furthermore, multiracial and international graduate students often face different experiences of discrimination than do other graduate students.

By better understanding STEMM academic climates, higher education institutions can begin to reflect on the social barriers that may limit minoritized students from matriculating in academic STEMM spaces and affect retention.

This chapter describes the possibilities for fusing ethnography and evaluation to transform educational inquiry and educational entities (programs, systems, and policies). The central question explored is, how do we best pursue work connecting evaluation and ethnography to fulfill our commitments to diversity, justice, and cultural responsiveness in educational spaces, to make tangible transformative change? With 40 years of literature on ethnography-evaluation connections as a foundation, this chapter describes three coalescing themes: transformative, intersectional, and comparative. These themes are proposed as valuable for guiding contemporary educational inquiry that serves social justice. The transformative theme denotes educational inquiry in which the researcher or evaluator ethically collects data, makes defensible interpretations, and facilitates social change in collaboration with others. Doing transformative work that meaningfully fuses ethnography and evaluation rests on essential factors like time, values engagement, collaboration, and self-work. The intersectional theme describes intersectionality as an evolving analytical framework that promotes social problem-solving and learning via investigating the significance of intersecting social identities in (a) how people's lives are shaped, (b) their access to power across circumstances, and (c) their everyday experiences of subordination and discrimination. Finally, the comparative theme refers to sensibilities and practices gleaned from the interdisciplinary and transnational field of comparative education, including developing comparative cultural understanding and analyzing complex systems in one's inquiry projects. Across themes, this chapter emphasizes positionality, responsibility, and theory-bridging to make sense of the uses of ethnographic concepts and practices in transformative evaluation work in educational spaces.

This concluding chapter provides a historical reflection of my bridging theories of ethnography and evaluation and the mentor guides who influenced this initial work from Charlottesville, VA, to Baltimore, MD, to Pittsburgh, PA. In reflecting on these Sankofa reflections by looking backward and forward, just as the Adinkra bird symbol illustrates, I highlight key lessons learned in doing ethnography as a doctoral and postdoctoral student, which sparked my initial conceptual and bridging work in public health, anthropology of education, and evaluation. My nascent ideas were fostered with advisors and mentors, Dell Hymes and Michael Agar, who themselves were bridging and leveraging theories and concepts from vast (inter)disciplinary networks and experiences in the field. The featured manuscripts below were meant to illustrate the ethnography-evaluation connections that I thought were so necessary then for my own understandings and lay fodder for the coalescing transformative, intersectional, and comparative themes of the book. Fast forward 25 years and the themes that I garnered as a “fair-haired youth” in the field are now more mature as reflected by the authors of this important and timely book. The beauty of the volume of chapters that preceded this conclusion is their conceptual depth toward notions, especially positionality, criticality, authenticity, and reciprocity. As such, I take these overarching concepts that are embedded in the chapters like the Sankofa bird's feet – with an eye toward the future. The concepts illustrated in the book do not reside in only one chapter but reflect a commonality across chapters and common concepts discussed in the overall volume.

While the concept of reciprocity has gained traction in qualitative research, especially as the term relates to challenging power dynamics inherent within the research and evaluation process, a gap remains in understanding how a researcher's or elevator's cultural background shapes the way reciprocity is conceptualized and practiced. We explore how Filipino concepts connected to reciprocity (utang na loob, pakikipagkapwa, and alalay) inform the practice of Filipina American researchers and evaluators in academia. We use Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Critical Kapwa in the conceptual framework to guide our study and employ a collaborative autoethnography (CAE) methodology. We present three findings: (1) reciprocity and utang na loob as a nontransactional debt, (2) reciprocity and pakikipagkapwa as seeing the humanity in others, and (3) reciprocity and alalay as carrying the weight together. We discuss this study's implications – regarding theorizing reciprocity, using collaborative autoethnography as methodology, and reclaiming deeper ways of knowing from a critical perspective – for transforming evaluation and research practice. Specifically, through a collaborative autoethnography, we learned the importance of understanding the nuances of language (i.e., Tagalog and other Filipino languages) as a decolonizing approach to arriving at our analysis of pakikipagkapwa through kuwentuhan. Methodologies that attend to a culturally responsive evaluation and research practice – –such as CAE and kuwentuhan– – amplify the voices of silenced communities. Lastly, deeply understanding the cultural context of evaluators' and researchers' experiences and cultural identities as well as studying oneself through a collaborative autoethnography can create practices of reciprocity that have been buried by settler colonialism.

The purpose and significance of Power, Voice, and the Public Good: Schooling and Education in Global Societies aim to highlight the defining nature and impact of globalization in contemporary educational policy and praxis with particular attention to changing relations in local, state, national, and international contexts, from pre-school to postsecondary education. While globalization impacts major issues such as poverty, social justice, terrorism, citizenship, immigration, language, and human rights, the nature and appropriation of education and schooling remain at the center of these issues (Suárez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard, 2004). That is, educational systems, policies, practices, and praxis in Mexico, Thailand, India, Korea, the United States, the West Indies, and other nation states addressed in this edited volume require responding to and engaging with the new challenges, conflicts, opportunities, and costs of globalization.