Beatriz Chu Clewell, Ph.D.
The Urban Institute

Equity, Diversity, and Retention: Using concepts of equity to achieve diversity by increasing the retention of women and underrepresented minorities in the science and engineering pipeline

Overview of the Issue

The definition of equity has changed significantly over the years. In the recent past, equity was often taken to mean equity of access. That is, it was widely acknowledged by proponents of equity that individuals of different subgroups (determined by race/ethnicity, sex, social class, and socioeconomic, language minority and disability status, to name a few) should have equal access to the resources, opportunities, and experiences that would equip them to achieve equally with the dominant group(s) (usually comprised of White, male, middle class, middle and higher income, English dominant, abled individuals). This perception of equity as equality of access has recently been replaced by the view of equity as equality of outcomes. This means that individuals' sex and race/ethnicity (or other demographic characteristics) do not predict their success or achievement.

Using this definition, the goal of achieving equity in S&E participation and representation becomes "parity with respect to population distribution in enrollment, academic performance,… graduation rates [and employment]of all groups in every phase of the pipeline" (CAWMSET, p. 4). This standard for equity was adopted by the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (CAWMSET) in its report to Congress, the National Governor's Association and the President in September of 2000. Several states, such as Texas, by holding schools and school districts accountable for student achievement outcomes for each racial/ethnic subgroup, are also adhering to this definition of equity.

Although we know that women and some minority groups ARE underrepresented in S&E, what do we know about the degree of their underrepresentation and the main reasons for this underrepresentation? Because the status of these groups has been changing rapidly it is important to monitor their progress towards achieving equal representation in S&E; to identify the phases along the math/science pipeline where the greatest attrition occurs; to summarize the body of knowledge that explains underrepresentation; and to identify gaps that exist in that knowledge base. The following is a brief summary of what we know concerning the status of women and underrepresented minorities in S&E as well as the main factors that affect their attrition from the S&E pipeline.

Women

At the precollege level women are now taking higher-level courses in mathematics and science at similar levels to men, although women lag in the taking of some AP exams. Some small differences remain between male and female scores on the NAEP tests and college entrance exams. Women, nevertheless, are in a position to enter SMET college majors at the same rate as men (Clewell & Campbell, in press).

At the postsecondary level, however, women choose SMET majors at less than half the rate of men and the gender enrollment gap in S&E has remained relatively stable since 1989 (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2000). Sex differences are even more striking in certain fields-engineering, physics and computer science-though not present in biological and agricultural fields. Women who do choose a SMET major are somewhat more likely than their male classmates to complete a B.S. in SMET. At the graduate level, women are still acutely underrepresented in several fields, most strikingly the physical sciences, engineering, computer science and mathematics/applied mathematics (NSF, in press). Woman have less expectations of earning a doctoral degree in S&E and this is reflected in their low representation among S&E doctoral candidates (NSF, in press). Once they enroll in a graduate program, however, women are as likely as men to complete the degree. The proportion of women in the S&E workforce has remained relatively stagnant in recent years and has even declined in occupations such as computer sciences and mathematics in spite of women's dramatically increased presence in the general labor force. Lower salaries, more family responsibilities, inequitable distribution of career rewards, and problems in accommodating dual careers are negative factors associated with women's employment in S&E occupations.

Research on the barriers to women's participation in S&E fields can be grouped into: testing-based research, biologically-based research, social-psychological research, and cognitively-based research. This research base has led to the development of multiple interventions to address the identified barriers (Clewell & Campbell, in press; Rosser, 1997). Although the impact of these interventions on girls' and women's retention in the S&E pipeline has rarely been documented quantitatively, the narrowing of the performance and coursetaking gaps between girls and boys suggests that interventions have been successful in getting girls to the point where they have the requisite academic skills to embark upon an S&E career. They have not been sufficient to encourage girls to become scientists or engineers or to enter fields such as physics and computer science. A gap in the knowledge base, therefore, represents the factors that inhibit women from choosing S&E majors and careers, especially in certain fields.

Underrepresented Minorities

The story for underrepresented minorities-African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos and American Indians-is much different. Although higher-level coursetaking in math and science has been increasing among these groups, they are still far behind their white and Asian counterparts in both advanced level coursetaking and scores on math and science standardized tests. In fact, few of these students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills necessary to major in S&E (Campbell & Hoey, 1999). We know that underrepresented minority students have much less access to high quality education in math and science. For example, they are less likely to be in college prep and advanced placement programs (Huang, Taddese, and Walter, 2000 in Campbell et al., 2002) and schools with large minority enrollments are less likely to offer advanced level courses in math and science or to have teachers certified in these subjects teaching math and science (CAWMSET, 2000). Nevertheless, we know that the strongest precollege predictor of college completion is a high school curriculum of high academic intensity and quality; this is especially true for African American and Hispanic students (Adelman, 1999).

Surprisingly, underrepresented minorities in 4-year colleges enroll in S& E majors at rates similar to those of white students, with Asian students having a higher rate of enrollment than any of the other groups. The gender gap in enrollment is much wider than the racial/ethnic gap. There are also few racial/ethnic differences in terms of in majors, except for Asians, who tend to choose computer science, biological sciences and engineering at a greater rate than other groups (NSF, in press). It is a different story, however, when we consider overall pipeline outcomes. Asian and white S&E students were much more likely to complete an S&E baccalaureate degree five years after enrollment than their underrepresented minority counterparts and much less likely to switch out of an S&E major (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). At the graduate level, except for Asians, participation rates following attainment of a bachelor's degree in S&E are comparable; Asians have rates of enrollment in graduate programs. Asians were more likely than other groups to major in engineering and computer science and African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians were more likely than whites and Asians to major in the social sciences. In terms of attainment of a doctoral degree in an S&E field, whites and Asians are overrepresented and African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians are underrepresented in terms of their presence in the U.S. population (NSF, in press). Nonwhite scientists and engineers who were in the labor force (i.e., either employed or seeking employment) were more likely to be unemployed than their white colleagues. Median salaries for minority scientists and engineers lagged behind those of their white colleagues (NSF, in press).

Obviously, the lack of achievement and higher level coursetaking on the part of underrepresented minorities poses the biggest threat to their persistence in the math/science pipeline. A large body of research documenting factors that have contributed to the closing of the achievement gap appeared between the late 1970s and 1990. Of particular interest are school and classroom factors such as class size, ability grouping, instructional strategies, teacher behavior and qualifications, access to resources, cultural congruence in instruction, parental involvement in education and many others because these can be changed via policy or practice. There remain, nonetheless, a number of gaps in our knowledge base of factors that affect minority student performance in science and mathematics at both the precollege and postsecondary levels.

Questions for Discussion: Gaps in the Knowledge Base

Given the changes in women's status in the past ten years, what research should be undertaken to identify factors that affect the most persistent barriers to women's equal representation in S&E (i.e., failure to choose S&E majors in college and failure to enter certain S&E fields?)

How do the factors that affect the equal representation of women of color in S&E differ from those that affect white women?

Have math and science reform efforts improved the achievement of women and underrepresented minorities? What do we know about this?

What are the most important gaps in our knowledge about the minority-white achievement gap?

What are the major sources of data that help us monitor the status of women and underrepresented minorities in S&E? What changes in the data collection and presentation are needed to provide better information on the status of these groups?

Suggested Readings

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor Degree Attainment. Jessup, MD: Education Publication Center.

Campbell, P. B., Jolly, E., Hoey, L. and Perlman, L. (January 2002). Upping the Numbers: Using Research-Based Decision Making to Increase Diversity in the Quantitative Disciplines. A Report Commissioned by the GE Fund. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.

Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development (CAWMSET) (2000). Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistic. Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education, NCES 2000-601, by Gary Huang, Nebiyu Taddese, and Elizabeth Walter. Project Officer, Samuel S. Peng. Washington, DC: 2000.