Women in Natural Sciences: A Longitudinal Comparative Case Study of Black Women in STEMM (1995-2015)

Drexel University, Philadelphia PA

Investigators

Abstract

There are few longitudinal research studies in either formal or informal settings that provide educators and researchers with insights into why BA/BS credentialed young people, including young women, drop out of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) careers at high rates upon entering the workforce. This longitudinal study will examine key professional outcomes and life trajectories among adult Black women who enrolled in Women in Natural Sciences (WINS), a 40-year-old out-of-school time (OST) high school STEM enrichment program. Prior research on WINS documents that alumnae outperform national averages on all metrics related to STEMM advancement up through college graduation. This study will test the hypothesis that such success continues for these cohorts as they pursue life goals and navigate the workforce. Findings from this study will promote the progress of science, pivotal to NSF's mission as the project builds knowledge about supportive and frustrating factors for success for all in STEMM careers, including Black Women. Strategic impact lies in the novel participant-centered research methods that amplify the research participant's voices and increase both accuracy and access in informal STEM learning research. This research probes the experiences of Black women at a critical phase of their workforce participation when BS/BA credentialed WINS alumnae establish their careers (ages 26-46). The team will conduct a longitudinal comparative case study of outcomes and life trajectories among 20 years of WINS cohorts (1995-2015). Research questions include (1) What do the life-journey narratives of WINS alumnae in adulthood reveal about influential factors in the socio-cultural ecological systems of Black women in STEMM? (2) What are the long-term outcomes among WINS women regarding education, STEMM and other careers, socio-economic status, and STEMM self-efficacy and interest? How do these vary? (3) What salient program elements in WINS are highlighted in alumnae narratives as relevant to Black women's experiences in adulthood? How do these associations vary? (4) How do selected outcomes (stated in RQ2) and life story narratives among non-enrolled applicants compare to program alumnae? and (5) How do salient components in the WINS program associate with socio-cultural factors regarding Black women's careers and other life goals? Participants include 100 Black WINS alumnae as an intervention group and a matched comparison group of 100 Black women who successfully applied to the WINS program but did not or could not enroll. Measurable life outcomes and life trajectory narratives with maps of experiences from both groups will be studied via a convergent mixed methods design inclusive of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Comparisons of outcomes and trajectories will be made between the study groups. Further, associations between alumnae's long-term outcomes and how they correlate their WINS experiences with other socio-cultural factors in their lives will be identified. It is anticipated that findings will challenge extant knowledge and pinpoint the most effective characteristics of and appropriate measures for studying lasting impacts of OST STEMM programs for all, including Black women and girls. In addition, the implications of this research will be beneficial for providers of after-school and out-of-school programs serving all youth. This AISL Research in Service to Practice award is funded by the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, which seeks to advance new approaches to, and evidence-based understanding of, the design and development of STEM learning in informal environments. This includes providing everyone with multiple pathways for accessing and engaging in STEM learning experiences. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.