The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM.

The gender imbalance in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields has remained constant for decades and increases the farther up the STEM career pipeline one looks. Why does the underrepresentation of women endure? This study investigated the role of parenthood as a mechanism of gender-differentiated attrition from STEM employment. Using a nationally representative 8-year longitudinal sample of US STEM professionals, we examined the career trajectories of new parents after the birth or adoption of their first child. We found substantial attrition of new mothers: 43% of women leave full-time STEM employment after their first child. New mothers are more likely than new fathers to leave STEM, to switch to part-time work, and to exit the labor force. These gender differences hold irrespective of variation by discipline, race, and other demographic factors. However, parenthood is not just a "mother's problem"; 23% of new fathers also leave STEM after their first child. Suggesting the difficulty of combining STEM work with caregiving responsibilities generally, new parents are more likely to leave full-time STEM jobs than otherwise similar childless peers and even new parents who remain employed full time are more likely than their childless peers to exit STEM for work elsewhere. These results have implications for policymakers and STEM workforce scholars; whereas parenthood is an important mechanism of women's attrition, both women and men leave at surprisingly high rates after having children. Given that most people become parents during their working lives, STEM fields must do more to retain professionals with children.

LGBTQ@NASA and Beyond: Work Structure and Workplace Inequality among LGBTQ STEM Professionals.

Scholars are just beginning to understand how organizational processes shape LGBTQ workplace inequality. Using multimethod data from STEM professionals, this article examines how one such factor-the way work tasks are structured within organizations-may impact LGBTQ workers' experiences of marginalization and devaluation. Through interviews with STEM professionals at two NASA space flight centers with different work structures, we find that LGBTQ professionals at the NASA center where work is organized in dynamic project-based teams experienced less inclusive and respectful interactions with colleagues, in part because they had to rapidly establish credibility and develop new status management strategies each time they were shuffled into new teams. The stability of the traditional unit-based structure at the other NASA center, by contrast, allowed LGBTQ professionals time to navigate status management and build trust. This stability also facilitated LGBTQ community building. Analysis of survey data of over 14,000 US STEM professionals (594 who identify as LGBTQ) corroborates this work structure pattern: LGBTQ professionals across STEM disciplines and employment sectors working in dynamic project-based teams were more likely to report interpersonal marginalization and devaluation than LGBTQ professionals who worked in traditional unit-based structures. These findings highlight work structure as an important mechanism of LGBTQ inequality that demands further investigation.

What fosters concern for inequality among American adolescents?

Understanding cultural beliefs about social and economic inequality is vital to discerning the roadblocks and pathways to addressing that inequality. The foundation of concern for inequality is laid during adolescence, yet scholars understand little about the factors that influence whether and how adolescents come to express such concern. Arguing that structural and cultural contexts are just as consequential as whether adolescents themselves are members of disadvantaged groups, I draw on four theoretical perspectives to identify factors that influence adolescents' concern for addressing inequality: the underdog thesis, intergroup contact theory, the education enlightens thesis, and ideological buttressing. Using representative restricted-use Educational Longitudinal Survey data, I find that 12th-graders' beliefs are indeed influenced by more than their own demography: the diversity of their social milieu, the content of education in and out of the classroom, and ideological buttressing via political region and entertainment all influence whether they express concern for addressing inequality. These findings suggest extensions and amendments to the four theoretical perspectives and underscore the importance of studying structural and cultural factors that shape beliefs about inequality. The results also point to several interventions that may increase students' concern for inequality: involvement in civic-oriented extracurricular activities, more education in academic subjects that consider inequality, nurturing of cross-race friendships, and increased leisure reading.

Engineering Ableism: The Exclusion and Devaluation of Engineering Students and Professionals with Physical Disabilities and Chronic and Mental Illness.

Background: The experiences of students and professionals with disabilities are routinely excluded from scholarly and policy debates about equity in engineering. Emergent research suggests that engineering is particularly ableist, yet systematic accounts of the possible exclusion and devaluation faced by engineers with disabilities are largely missing. Purpose/Hypothesis: This paper asks, do engineers with disabilities have more negative interpersonal experiences in engineering classrooms and workplaces than those without disabilities? Utilizing a social relational model of disability, I hypothesize that engineers with physical disabilities and chronic and mental illness are more likely to experience exclusion and professional devaluation than their peers and, partly as a result, have lower persistence intentions. Data/Methods: The paper uses survey data from 1,729 students enrolled in eight US engineering programs (ASEE Diversity and Inclusion Survey) and 8,321 US-employed engineers (STEM Inclusion Study Survey). Analyses use regression, mediation, and intersectional approaches. Results: Consistent with expectations, engineering students and professionals with disabilities are less likely than their peers to experience social inclusion and professional respect at school and work. Students with disabilities are more likely to intend to leave their engineering programs and professionals with disabilities are more likely to have thought about leaving their engineering jobs compared to peers, and their greater risks of encountering interpersonal bias help account for these differences. Analyses also reveal intersectional variation by gender and race/ethnicity. Conclusion: These results suggest that engineering harbors widespread ableism across education and work. The findings demand more scholarly attention to the social, cultural, and physical barriers that block people with disabilities from full and equal participation in engineering.

Productivity metrics and hiring rubrics are warped by cultural schemas of merit.

Academic science is committed to objective hiring and promotion, yet diversification has stalled. Conventional approaches to improve diversity overlook the valorized cultural schemas scientists use to assess, and often mismeasure, merit. These schemas warp the design and use of productivity metrics and rubric scoring. We suggest interventions to unwarp them.

The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM.

A foundational assumption of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) inequality research is that members of the most well represented demographic group-white able-bodied heterosexual men (WAHM)-are uniquely privileged in STEM. But is this really the case? Using survey data of U.S. STEM professionals (N = 25,324), this study examines whether WAHM experience better treatment and rewards in STEM compared with members of all 31 other intersectional gender, race, sexual identity, and disability status categories. Indicating systematic advantages accompanying WAHM status, WAHM experience more social inclusion, professional respect, and career opportunities, and have higher salaries and persistence intentions than STEM professionals in 31 other intersectional groups. Decomposition analyses illustrate that these advantages operate in part as premiums-benefits attached to WAHM status that cannot be attributed to variation in human capital, work effort, and other factors. These findings motivate research and policy efforts to move beyond a single axis paradigm to better understand and address intersectional (dis)advantages in STEM.

Unsettled Employment, Reshuffled Priorities? Career Prioritization among College-Educated Workers Facing Employment Instability during COVID-19.

Millions of workers experienced job instability during the COVID-19 pandemic. A prevailing assumption is that such experiences of instability intensify economic rationality in workers' career decision-making as a matter of course. In contrast, the authors argue that pandemic-related employment instability may have "unsettled" workers' lives in ways that elevated non-financial priorities such as meaningful work. Using proportionally representative survey data (N=1628), the authors compare the priorities of US college-educated workers who were laid off or furloughed during the pandemic to those whose jobs remained stable. Counter to expectations of heightened economic rationality, job-unstable workers were not more likely than job-stable workers to emphasize job security or salary in beliefs about good work. But, they were more likely to prioritize passion for work. These findings challenge common assumptions about job prioritization in the wake of crisis-related job instability and have implications for how scholars and policymakers interpret labor force trends.

Disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on marginalized and minoritized early-career academic scientists.

Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.

Caring for our own: the role of institutionalized support structures in Native American nursing student success.

In this project, the authors asked 19 Native American baccalaureate nursing students to discuss their experiences with a formal institutionalized student support program called "Caring for Our Own: A Reservation/University Partnership Program." The authors investigated the importance of different types of support structures within this program, as viewed by Native American nursing students. They distinguished between four institutionalized support structures: tangible, informational, emotional, and belonging. The authors found that students consider tangible support (such as stipends) to be comparatively less important than other types of support, particularly emotional and belonging support. Responses also revealed the importance of a fifth type of institutionalized support-motivational. The authors further discuss how these institutionalized support structures might lead to successful outcomes for Native American nursing students.

Effects of formal and informal support structures on the motivation of Native American students in nursing.

Native Americans have traditionally been underrepresented in nursing. The authors surveyed 19 undergraduate nursing students participating in a university sponsored Native American nursing student support program and examined which social support factors influenced the students' success. Using validated quantitative measures from social psychology, the authors found that overall perceived social support, as well as support from the university sponsored program, positively influenced Native American students' identification with nursing, their interest in nursing, their perception of the value of nursing, and their motivation to continue pursuing nursing as a career. Conversely, perceptions of unfairness due to racial bias within the major negatively affected students' perception of the value of nursing, as well as their motivation to pursue a nursing career.

LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education.

Background: Researchers over the last three decades have documented processes of gender and racial/ethnic inequality in engineering education, but little is known about other axes of difference, including the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) persons in engineering. Despite growing interest in LGBTQ inequality generally, prior research has yet to systematically document day-to-day experiences of inequality in engineering along LGBTQ status. Purpose/Hypothesis: In this paper, we utilize survey data of students from eight schools to sketch the landscape of LGBTQ inequality in engineering education. Specifically, we ask, do LGBTQ students experience greater marginalization than their classmates, is their engineering work more likely to be devalued, and do they experience more negative health and wellness outcomes? We hypothesize that LGBTQ students experience greater marginalization and devaluation and worse health and wellness outcomes compared to their non-LGBTQ peers. Data/Method: We analyze novel survey data from 1729 undergraduate students (141 of whom identify as LGBTQ) enrolled in eight U.S. engineering programs. Results: We find that LGBTQ students face greater marginalization, devaluation, and health and wellness issues relative to their peers, and that these health and wellness inequalities are explained in part by LGBTQ students' experiences of marginalization and devaluation in their engineering programs. Further, there is little variation in the climate for LGBTQ students across the eight schools, suggesting that anti-LGBTQ bias may be widespread in engineering education. Conclusions: We call for reflexive research on LGBTQ inequality engineering education and the institutional and cultural shifts therein needed to mitigate these processes and better support LGBTQ students.

Rugged Meritocratists: The Role of Overt Bias and the Meritocratic Ideology in Trump Supporters' Opposition to Social Justice Efforts.

Opposition to social justice efforts plays a key role in reproducing social inequalities in the U.S. Focusing on Trump supporters as a possible exemplar of politically structured resistance to these efforts, I ask whether and why Trump supporters are more likely than other Americans to oppose social justice efforts. Analysis of a proportionally representative, post-election survey (N=1151) finds that Trump supporters are indeed more opposed to social justice efforts. They also express greater overt race, class, and gender bias, yet this bias does not explain their opposition. Rather, many Trump supporters are "rugged meritocratists" who oppose these efforts because they believe U.S. society is already fair. To expand support for social justice efforts, rugged meritocratists must first be convinced that systemic inequalities still exist.

Queer in STEM Organizations: Workplace Disadvantages for LGBT Employees in STEM Related Federal Agencies.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in U.S. workplaces often face disadvantages in pay, promotion, and inclusion and emergent research suggests that these disadvantages may be particularly pernicious within science and engineering environments. However, no research has systematically examined whether LGBT employees indeed encounter disadvantages in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) organizations. Using representative data of over 30,000 workers employed in six STEM-related federal agencies (the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Transportation), over 1000 of whom identify as LGBT, we compare the workplace experiences of LGBT employees in STEM-related federal agencies with those of their non-LGBT colleagues. Across numerous measures along two separate dimensions of workplace experiences-perceived treatment as employees and work satisfaction-LGBT employees in STEM agencies report systematically more negative workplace experiences than their non-LGBT colleagues. Exploring how these disadvantages vary by agency, supervisory status, age cohort, and gender, we find that LGBT persons have more positive experiences in regulatory agencies but that supervisory status does not improve LGBT persons' experiences, nor do the youngest LGBT employees fare better than their older LGBT colleagues. LGBT-identifying men and women report similar workplace disadvantages. We discuss the implications of these findings for STEM organizations and STEM inequality more broadly.