Diversity in STEM Review: draft recommendations

Providing feedback on ‘Diversity in STEM Review: draft recommendations’

As part of the SCOPE (Science Communication, Outreach, Participation and
Engagement) research group, at the University of Sydney, we have read and discussed these draft recommendations in our group meetings as they align with our main research objectives to make science more accessible.

Here we present our perspectives and suggestions for the questions:

1. Are the draft recommendations the right way to achieve the objectives?

There were a few recommendations that did an outstanding job of describing how change might be made:
• Recommendation 3a is specific and provides examples on how these recommendations
might be carried out, especially pertaining to First Nations inclusion.
• Recommendation 4a also gives concrete steps forward to enact the recommendation.
Examples are necessary to take this from a broad theoretical recommendation to
something which could be implemented.
Examples where more detail may be necessary:
• The Education recommendations make good reference to the incredibly high workload
teachers are already placed under, but may not go deep enough to address this issue - this
goes beyond STEM and requires an overhaul of the entire education system, before
anything can be done for specific fields of learning. Can they link up with other studies or
initiatives in the Education Sector to go deeper into this?
• More details could be provided related to VET courses. Rec 6a - How will they make
VET training more attractive beyond increasing inclusion in promotion? How will they
make a pathway between VET and higher education? It needs to be enhanced with details
of practical steps.
2. How can the draft recommendations be improved to drive systemic change?

The draft recommendations could be more specific in how they will identify and tackle barriers that affect underrepresented groups in pursuing a career in STEM. Also, a definition is needed to clarify which groups are considered underrepresented. For instance, are refugees in the same group as Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) people? Do refugees and immigrants from low-income countries face the same challenges as culturally diverse people who migrated from well-developed countries? Are people from low socioeconomic status (LSE) included in these categories of underrepresented groups? Should they be in a category alone?
Systematic changes start when we acknowledge the main systemic problems in a given context. Thus, social inequality (impacted by many factors, including low socioeconomic status) is a major systemic issue that affects accessibility to education globally
(https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging- divide#:~:text=Inequalities%20of%20opportunity%20affect%20a,lack%20of%20access%20to%
20justice.).
The draft recommendations could be improved to drive systemic change by recognising the need to tackle social inequality and proposing ways to do it, for example, by following examples from other countries and providing scholarships to low-income students to get into universities. These goals should focus on accessibility and retention.
The recommendations could also provide definitions for the metrics of success used by the research investigators. The report states that it heard what is working, what is not, and what could work in the future. The authors could be more specific in what “working” means. Is it related to the number of people enrolling in STEM courses?
Finally, the recommendations could follow an objective- and timely-specific structure.
This could include how many people they expect to enrol in university degrees or vocational training over the next five years.
3. What other recommendations should we include in the report to the government?

The draft recommendations present solid aims and objectives. We highlight that some recommendations could be more specific in terms of time and evaluation. For instance,

The report does well in identifying key themes including leadership/ governance, community attitudes, lifelong learning and workplaces. However this separation in structure may mean government bodies may be too far removed from addressing problems within programs.
For example recommendation 2a, creating a national strategic approach to target policy objectives, address barriers, set priorities for funding initiatives is not specific. Working with educators and those with lived experiences may yield specific barriers such as income, lack of familial support, etc. Therefore improving recommendation 2a by providing more productive suggestions to how to address these barriers. Recommendation 3a pushes for increased funding, investment and procurement for STEM-related programs. Specific direction to increase STEM jobs in the workforce, incentivising candidates with better working conditions, income increase based on credentials and job security.

Under the theme of community and cultural attitudes, the recommendation 4b encourages the media to celebrate diversity in STEM but more specific details would allow for the appropriate parties to take action. For example increasing representation by introducing diverse characters in STEM roles in kids TV shows on ABC kids, or occasionally highlighting STEM success stories on general news channels. This would provide direction for specific TV networks to be contacted, to assess audience perception, and determine ways to integrate this strategy. A media initiative does not necessarily mean a brand new show or segment, but subtle introductions of new voices such as First Nations.

For lifelong learning, improving education for teachers is mentioned in recommendation
5a. To further ensure teachers enter the workforce, involving education academics to create evidence based modules that place emphasis on equity, equality. There is no correct answer but possibly showcasing a variety of opinions and experiences as part of the knowledge delivered.
The report does not identify why diversity has not been successful in workplaces. People do not
enter into a workplace expecting to prioritise being open and patient with those who have different backgrounds, speak a different language or learnt their skill set in a different context.
Educating that one person is not the ‘norm’, and that everyone else is the minority, etc. Everyone has uniqueness in their background, personality, and experiences. No one is the standard and the rest a deviation that must be addressed. Incorporating thoughts of this vein into teacher education pathways could prove effective.

Finally for the theme of workplaces, to improve recommendation 9b putting in place overall workplace values that encourage positive cultural attitudes. Generally individuals prioritise their work and ensure deadlines are met. By employees being surrounded by a generally accepted ideology of workplace practice and mindset this could encourage shifting perspective that doing a job is working with others, finding their value. Shifting their perspective to not see it as inhibiting work flow but rather enriching individual experience, cultural competence. Incentivising potential candidates that cultural competence is a valued criteria for employment.

4. Any data-driven case studies that show real impact.

Several studies were conducted in Brazil to analyse the impact of the “Racial and low-income quotas” in Brazilian universities. These studies showed that quotas enabled students from lower economic status to enrol and conduct their degrees in public universities.
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12564
• https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/47/3/754
• https://theconversation.com/what-the-us-can-learn-from-affirmative-action-at-universities-in-
brazil-208647
Incentives to underrepresented people to access the universities, such as scholarships income-based, rather than merit-based, could help address the challenges that people from underrepresented groups face to pursue a career in STEM.