The Research Catalogue
New Findings and Insights on Institutional Practices and Academic Success

This is a digest of sources on issues addressed by the AAAS Capacity Center.  It is updated periodically, sometimes with commentary.  Web links, some accessible only to subscribers, are provided wherever possible, though we cannot assure their viability.

“An Insidious Attack on Affirmative Action” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 1, 2005, Page B16 www.chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i43/43b010601htm

Author Elsie Boddie discusses recent attempts to discourage affirmative action following the Grutter vs. Bollinger decision and calls attention to the increasing need to bolster support for race-based admissions and maintain diversity programs:

“Colleges and universities that consider race are well advised to re-examine their policies to ensure they reflect a clearly articulated interest in diversity and an educational mission that is tied to their interest; and they should refine such programs if they do not demonstrably satisfy those objectives.  But as the Education Department’s own 1994 guidance on financial aid indicates, that does not mean that race-targeted programs outside admissions—in recruitment, advising, scholarship, and retention—are necessarily unlawful if they are part of a broader university effort to facilitate student diversity.  By reflexively abandoning such programs, they may be sacrificing important tools for enrolling and retaining critical numbers of minority students.  Indeed, such programs may be crucial to realizing the very diversity that the court sanctioned in its broad opinion in Grutter.”

“Higher-education institutions must continue to devise ways to ensure that their student ranks reflect the nation’s population.  They must use every resource at their disposal to aggressively recruit, admit, and retain African-American and other underrepresented minority students.  The need for comprehensive measures to redress the persistent opportunity gap that confronts those students is as compelling in this era of Grutter as it was in the era of Brown.”

“Women and ICT Roundtable Discussion”  Ruta Sevo, National Science Foundation, June 2005, contact rsevo@nsf.gov

In a very digestible format, the program officer for the National Science Foundation Gender in Science and Engineering program provides talking points to support a heightened role for women in science and engineering:

“There are various motivations to push for the increased participation of women in science and engineering. They are expressed in governmental mandates, business plans, petitions, policy reports, and education initiatives.  What arguments have been used, by whom, and to whom?  Which ones are grounded in values and which are grounded in data and research findings?  What are some “talking points” and resources we might use strategically to influence the thinking among various communities?  How can we analyze our audiences and fit our arguments to their needs and interests? “

 “What’s Next in Diversifying the US Engineering Workforce” Karan Watson, Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education of the National Academy of Engineering; www.nae.edu/nae/caseecomnew.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256d9f006047a985256f4b0048a657/$FILE/Watson%20remarks.pdf

A provocative think-piece on the lack of diversity in the engineering workforce that suggests practical, proven efforts to increase participation of women and underrepresented minorities.

“How can engineers, so adept at problem-solving remain so inept with the diversity problem?  I contend that we have not failed in creativity, but in discipline.  We have been overwhelmed by the complexity of the problem, by the number of factors beyond our control, and by the lack of sufficient resources to address what we can influence. It is time to choose acceptable scientifically-based models, to focus our creativity for systematically improving diversity in the engineering workforce.”

“We are not likely to raise the diversity of the engineering profession in the United States with respect to gender and underrepresented minorities if we are not willing to invest at a systemic level, rather than piecemeal investments.  This is not something that needs to be piloted first on a small scale.  These pilot tests have occurred.  We know we can develop cognitive abilities with schooling.  We know we can influence career choices with exposure and experiences.  We know we can develop diverse identities within engineering.  We can learn from more research on how to better accomplish certain learning outcomes for diverse students, but if we are not willing to invest in faculty development in engineering for the advancement of diversity, then we do not consider it to be an imperative for the profession.”

“Broadening Participation in America’s Science and Engineering Workforce” Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, December 2004, The Executive Summary of the 1994-2003 Decennial & Biennial Reports to Congress; www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104307&org=NSF&from=news

This extensive report from the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) incorporates the history of NSF Policies and Programs for advancing STEM diversity and recommendations for the future.  CEOSE is comprised of a group of researchers who advise the National Science Foundation “on policies and programs to encourage the full participation by women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.” Some would say that it has never had the impact on NSF operations in the directorates, divisions, and programs that Congress envisioned.  If NSF were to look at its education portfolio, this would be a savvy place to start. 

“As a committee originally established to address the problem of shrinking pool of American scientists and engineers and the growing global competition for science and engineering talent, CEOSE over the last 25 years has worked to understand, assess, and provide recommendations for addressing the issues involved in broadening participation in STEM…  In this report, CEOSE of 2003-2004 has taken a concerted look at the Committee’s history and arrived at a set of conclusions and recommendations about the current state of representation in and emerging needs of the U.S. STEM workforce.”

STEM Workforce Data Project, Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST) June 4, 2004, all reports available at www.cpst.org/STEM_Report.cfm

Report No. 1: Twenty Years of Scientific and Technical Employment

“Time series data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for employment by occupation from 1983 through 2002 can be used to document substantial growth in the overall number of persons in the United States with scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) jobs.  A pause in this general trend of growth occurred during the business recession of the early 1990s, and declines in employment also affected many STEM occupations in 2002. Much of the growth was due to the recent boom in the computer and telecommunication industries.  Other sectors of STEM employment did not do as well.  The number of jobs in some occupations declined over a 20-year period, while growth in other occupations did not keep up with general increases in the size of the U.S. labor force.”

Report No. 2: Women in Science and Technology: The Sisyphean Challenge of Change

“Striking variations exist among STEM occupations in the employment of women, who hold over half the jobs in the social sciences but less than 15 percent of those in engineering.  The share of jobs help by women has increased in many STEM professions during the last two decades, but often these increases have been small.  In computer science, the largest of these occupations, the proportion of women workers peaked during the later 1980s and early 1990s at around a third of the positions; since then their share of these jobs has declined.”

Report No. 3: Sisyphus Revisited: Participation by Minorities in STEM Occupations, 1994-2004

“Limited improvements are evident in trends during the past decade in the inclusion of minorities in scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) occupations, especially for Hispanics, the fastest-growing large minority group in the United States.  Improvements for African Americans are less notable; the gap between their share of all professional jobs and their share of STEM employment was large ten years ago, and is even larger now.  This report also includes information on Asians, who are not underrepresented in the STEM occupations, and on differences between men and women in these minority population data.”