FIGURE 3 - uploaded by David Esparza
Content may be subject to copyright.
Relative importance of social identities to students' field course experiences. Percentage (%) of interviewees indicates the proportion of students that selected each of the identities listed on the y-axis. Some of these identities are characterized as being underserved, excluded, and minoritized (UEM) or non-underserved, excluded, and minoritized (NUEM). The "UEM gender" label includes students who identified as women and/or gender-expansive (n = 22). The "non-UEM gender" label includes students who identified as men (n = 7). The "UEM Race/Ethnicity" label includes students who identified as American Indian, Asian, Black, and/or Latiné (n = 12). The "non-UEM Race/Ethnicity" label includes students who identified as White (n = 24). Students also chose cards corresponding with LGBTQ+ (n = 8), Disability (n = 7), and First-generation/Low-income (n = 6) identities.
Source publication
Field biology courses can be formative learning experiences that develop students’ science identities. Yet, they can also pose challenges to students that may disaffirm their science identities—especially to those who identify with underrepresented, excluded, and minoritized groups. It is largely unknown how students’ social (e.g., gender) and pers...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... found that the social factors that influenced the formation of students' science identities (Table 3) mediated intersections between students' science and social identities. Students who identified with UEM genders, as having disabilities, or as firstgeneration/low-income saw greater importance of these identities in relation to their field course experiences ( Figure 3). ...
Context 2
... Identity and Science Identities. We found that students identifying with UEM genders saw their gender identities to be more important to their field course experiences as compared with non-UEM gender students (i.e., men) ( Figure 3). In describing the impact of these identities, students who identified with UEM genders highlighted issues related to systemic gender discrimination in STEM, such as difficult social conditions and a lack of representation in field biology (Table 4) (Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016;Grunspan et al., 2016;Matsuda, 2023). ...
Context 3
... gender students did not perceive this similar sense of comfort in a shared social identity. Instead, non-UEM gender students often placed the respective card as less important (Figure 3) and described that their gender identity had less or no influence on their field course experiences. One such student who identified as a man described a feeling of needing to perform a greater portion of physical labor in the field course for his peers that identify as women (Table 4, Quote G). ...
Context 4
... interviewees found their UEM and non-UEM racial/ethnic identities to be less important (UEM = 75.0%, non-UEM = 70.8%) to their experiences in the field course ( Figure 3). However, some students' racial/ethnic identities intersected with the subconstructs of their science identities (Table 5). ...
Context 5
... students identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities described navigating pervasive structural issues in STEM, some non-UEM students described feelings of comfort and inclusion as being the reason why their racial/ethnic identity had less impact on their field course experiences (Figure 3). This sense of inclusion often involved descriptions of the demographic makeup of the field course, wherein they felt a shared sense of identity related to their non-UEM racial/ethnic identity, for example Table 5, Quote B. Several students further acknowledged the inherent privilege that accompanies this shared sense of identity, mentioning how academic spaces-such as field courses-are particularly welcoming for students with non-UEM racial/ethnic identities, for example Table 5, Quote C. Other students who identified with non-UEM racial/ethnic identities suggested that social identities, overall, held no importance in their undergraduate field biology course (e.g., Table 5, Quote D) when discussing their race/ethnicity. ...
Context 6
... the card sorting task, approximately a quarter of our interviewees selected the card for LGBTQ+ identities. These students indicated that this identity was largely less important (75%) (Figure 3) within the context of their field course experiences, for example, Table 6, Quote A. ...
Context 7
... than a quarter of our sample selected cards indicating that they identified with first-generation or low-income backgrounds. These students largely found these identities to be the more important to their field course experiences ( Figure 3). First-generation students often highlighted the prevalent opportunity gaps they face in navigating college, broadly, and field biology courses (Table 7). ...
Context 8
... quarter of our interviewees selected the "Person with Disability" card. Many of these students found this identity to be more important in relation to their field course experiences (Figure 3), describing structural factors inherent to the design of field-based education (Table 8). These students described how structural factors related to the immersive nature of field courses provided them with additional challenges in navigating their science identities, for example, Table 8, Quote A. ...
Context 9
... found that social factors (shared sense of identity, social comparison, and awareness of stereotypes) influence how students develop their science identities in undergraduate field biology courses (Table 3). In addition to these social factors, structural factors (e.g., lack of representation, privilege) further mediated intersections between aspects of students' science identities and their social and personal identities (Tables 4-9), which varied in importance (Figure 3). Last, a subset of students described intersecting identities (Jones and McEwen, 2000;Stets and Burke, 2000;Stryker and Burke, 2000) between multiple social identities (e.g., race and gender identities) and their science identities (Table 10). ...
Context 10
... Gender Discrimination. Students identifying with UEM genders saw greater salience of their gender identities in field biology courses (Figure 3), with some describing structural factors related to systemic gender discrimination ( Figure 4A). Specifically, a subset of students identifying with UEM genders perceived the climate as unwelcoming and dismissive (e.g., Table 4, Quotes A and B) destabilizing their perceived recognition ( Figure 4C). ...
Context 11
... Field as a Disabling Space. Students with disabilities felt great salience of their disability identity in their field biology course (Figure 3), the importance of which related to structural factors in the way field courses are designed ( Figure 4A). Further, in discussing their physical, sensory, and emotional disabilities (i.e., their disability identity, Figure 4B), students described how it diminished their sense of competence/performance ( Figure 4C) (Table 8, Quotes A-D). ...
Context 12
... other students made no mention of the privileges granted to them by their non-UEM racial/ethnic (e.g., Table 5, Quotes B and D) and gender identities (Table 4, Quote G). In these cases, these students often ranked these identities as less important (Figure 3) and described that these identities had little to no impact on their experiences. Students identifying with UEM racial/ethnic identities also ranked these identities as less important to their field course, denoting little to no impact on their field course experiences and science identities. ...
