research papers on diversity in the classroom

Advertisement

Diversity in the Classrooms: A Human-Centered Approach to Schools

• Published: 17 April 2020
• Volume 51 , pages 429–439, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk 1 , 2  

3291 Accesses

6 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article explores the perceptions of experiences and insights of four Alberta teachers on the understanding of diversity in the classrooms. The teachers in this multiple case study argue that the popular understanding of diversity, especially in schools, is often supported by American contextualized narrative of polarized racial views focusing on assumptions of contrasting ‘whiteness’ visible in race, culture and socio-economic status associated to ones’ skin colour, for instance it recognizes dark-skinned students as diverse as opposed to teachers who are perceived simply as a large group of ‘white, middle-class ladies’. Such conceptualization of diversity is problematic as its social-constructed understanding implies that teachers of European descent share a common ‘Euro-centered’ history, culture, and ethnicity, while Europe is in fact an ethnically, historically and culturally diverse continent. These assumptions have serious implications on teaching and learning as it directly reflects on teacher preparation programs, professional development practices and educational policies. The selective approach to diversity based on race and culture does a disservice to education’s purpose as it over-focuses on visible aspects of differences among students while it disregards the universal needs of a community of learners in schools. This paper advocates for a human-centered understanding of diversity in schools, which seeks to understand diversity beyond the socially constructed borders surrounding race, culture and gender, often used to define teachers as simply ‘white’ in the context of diversity in Canada.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Who Are the Teachers and Who Are the Learners? Teacher Education for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Preparing Teachers for Diversity and Inclusion: An Analysis of Teacher Education Policies and Practices in Austria

Racialized Identity: (In)Visibility and Teaching—A Community of Critical Consciousness

Alberta Education (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differentiated instruction . Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/384968/makingadifference_2010.pdf

Aoki, T. T. (2005) Toward curriculum inquiry in a new key (1978/1980). In Aoki, T. T., Pinar, W. F., Irwin, R. L., & Ebrary, I.  Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki . Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ATA -Alberta Teachers Association (2014). Report of the blue ribbon panel: Inclusive education in Alberta school . Retrieved from https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/News-Room/2014/PD-170-1%20PD%20Blue%20Ribbon%20Panel%20Report%202014-web.pdf

ATA -Alberta Teachers Association (2009). Mental health in Schools: Teachers have the power to make a difference . Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume%2090/Number%201/Articles/Pages/MentalHealthinSchools.aspx

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multiculturalism education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture . New York, NY: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Courtland, M. C., & Gonzalez, I. (2013). Imagining the possibilities: The potential of diverse Canadian picture books. In I. Johnston & J. Bainbridge (Eds.), The pedagogical potential of diverse Canadian picture books: Pre-service teachers explore issues of identity, ideology, and pedagogy (pp. 96–113). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

Cranston, A. J. (2015). Navigating the Bermuda Triangle of teacher hiring practices. In N. Maynes & B. E. Hatt (Eds.), Canada the complexity of hiring, supporting, and retaining new teachers across Canada (pp. 128–149). Polygraph Series: Canadian Association for Teacher Education (CATE).

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design (international student edition): Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crocker, R. K., & Dibbon, D. C. (2008). Teacher education in Canada: A baseline study. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Kelowna, Canada: University of Calgary. Retrieved from https://deslibris.ca/ID/216529

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fontenelle-Tereshchuk, D. D. (2019). Exploring teachers' insights into their professional growth and other experiences in diverse classrooms in Alberta. University of Alberta, Canada. Doctoral unpublished dissertation.

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2012). Racial and ethnic diversity in schools: The case of English Canada. Prospects, 42 (2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-012-9231-0 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2008). Educators' discourses on student diversity in Canada: Context, policy, and practice . Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Retrieved from https://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Glaser_1967.pdf

Guess, T. J. (2006). The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by consequence. Critical Sociology, 32 (4), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916306779155199 .

Guo, Y. (2011). Perspectives of immigrant Muslim parents: Advocating for religious diversity in Canadian schools. (Researching bias). Multicultural Education, 18 (2), 55–60.

Howe, E. (2014). Bridging the aboriginal education gap in Alberta: The provincial benefit exceeds a quarter of a trillion dollars. Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research .

McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools : An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Irwin.

McLeod, K. (1975). Education and the assimilation of new Canadians in the North-West territories and Saskatchewan1885–1934 . University of Toronto, Canada. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation).

Miller, J. (2018). Residential Schools in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools

Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347670 .

Moore, A. (2004). The good teacher: Dominant discourses in teaching and teacher education . New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Padula, A. P., & Miller, L. D. (1999). Understanding Graduate Women's Re-entry Experiences: Case Studies of Four Psychology Doctoral Students in a Midwestern University. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 , 327–343.

Palmer, H. (1982). Patterns of prejudice: A history of nativism in Alberta . Toronto, Canada: McClelland and Stewart.

Peacock J., Holland D., (1993) The Narrated Self Life Stories in Process. Ethos 21(4): 367–383

Rodrigues, S. (2005). Teacher professional development in science education . In S. Rodrigues, International perspectives on teacher professional development: Changes influenced by politics, pedagogy and innovation (pp.1 13). New York, NY: Nova Science

Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32 (3), 591–617.

Syed, K. T. (2010). Canadian educators’ narratives of teaching multicultural education. International Journal of Canadian Studie s, 42, 255–269. Retrieved from https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ijcs/2010-n42-ijcs1516360/1002181ar.pdf

Statistics Canada (2017). Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98–404-X2016001. Ottawa, Ontario. Data products, 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-pr-eng.cfm?Lang=Eng&GK=PR&GC=48&TOPIC=7

U.S. National Library of Medicine (2019). Help me understand genetics: Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. Retrieved from PDF version of https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/ancestrytesting .

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Fontenelle-Tereshchuk .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fontenelle-Tereshchuk, D. Diversity in the Classrooms: A Human-Centered Approach to Schools. Interchange 51 , 429–439 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09402-4

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2020

Accepted : 08 April 2020

Published : 17 April 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09402-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Diversity Interventions in the Classroom: From Resistance to Action

Dustin b thoman, melo-jean yap, felisha a herrera, jessi l smith.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

*Address correspondence to: Dustin B. Thoman ( [email protected] ).

Received 2020 Jul 13; Revised 2021 Jun 22; Accepted 2021 Jul 23.

This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License.

What goes into faculty decisions to adopt a classroom intervention that closes achievement gaps? We present a theoretical model for understanding possible resistance to and support for implementing and sustaining a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. We propose, examine, and refine a “diversity interventions—resistance to action” model with four key inputs that help explain faculty’s decision to implement (or not) an evidence-based intervention: 1) notice that underrepresentation is a problem, 2) interpret underrepresentation as needing immediate action, 3) assume responsibility, and 4) know how to help. Using an embedded mixed-methods design, we worked with a sample of 40 biology faculty from across the United States who participated in in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews and surveys. Survey results offer initial support for the model, showing that the inputs are associated with faculty’s perceived value of and implementation intentions for a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. Findings from qualitative narratives provide rich contextual information that illuminates how faculty think about diversity and classroom interventions. The diversity interventions—resistance to action model highlights the explicit role of faculty as systemic gatekeepers in field-wide efforts to diversify biology education, and findings point to strategies for overcoming different aspects of faculty resistance in order to scale up diversity-enhancing classroom interventions.

DIVERSITY INTERVENTIONS IN THE CLASSROOM: FROM RESISTANCE TO ACTION

Broadening participation in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research workforce necessarily means cultivating the next generation of researchers. It is essential to create a learning and working research context that is inclusive and diverse, where historically oppressed voices, ways of knowing, and lived experiences shape research and discovery. This is why supporting efforts to diversify the U.S. STEM workforce is a long-standing mission of national scientific agencies, including the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and National Academies. Consistently tracking data to identify group-based inequalities in participation and degree attainment (e.g., differences between majority and historically underrepresented minority [URM] students) is an essential first step in identifying the problem ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2019 ). Developing and rigorously testing theoretically informed strategies to reduce inequities is a critical second step. What is also clear from national priorities and reports is the need for sustainability and achieving scale for empirically supported strategies. But this is easier said than done and requires trying to understand psychological and social interventions “that mitigate … barriers to workforce diversity” with the need to have “a national strategy to scale, disseminate and sustain” diversity-enhancing intervention efforts ( Valantine and Collins, 2015 , p. 12240).

There are many examples of evidence-based diversity-enhancing interventions that can provide scalable solutions that address inequities. Indeed, researchers have developed a wide range of simple, low-cost interventions for undergraduate classrooms that aim to change the educational environment (versus “fixing” the underrepresented student) with demonstrated long-lasting effects for closing achievement gaps and broadening participation ( Fox et al. , 2009 ; Tibbetts et al. , 2016 ; Casad et al. , 2018 ). We refer to these as “diversity-enhancing interventions.”

Despite the promise of such low-cost evidence-based curricular interventions for shrinking achievement gaps in biology courses, and STEM courses more broadly, they are not always—or even often—adopted outside the study context (e.g., Austin, 2011 ; Kezar et al. , 2015 ). In this paper, we consider why successful diversity-enhancing classroom interventions are not more often adopted. We first describe what we mean by diversity-enhancing interventions and present our diversity interventions—resistance to action model. We then present mixed-methods data to 1) examine the potential for our model to explain instructors’ decisions related to diversity-enhancing interventions and 2) conduct an initial exploration of how faculty think about diversity in general and diversity-enhancing interventions in particular.

To provide a concrete example in biology education, we consider the utility value intervention (UVI) as our exemplar intervention. In a randomized control trial study conducted at the University of Wisconsin ( Harackiewicz et al. , 2016 ), students ( n = 1040) wrote essays about course content at three points during the semester and discussed how the topic was relevant to their own lives (in control conditions, students wrote summaries of course content only). The UVI had a positive effect for all students in the biology class and was most effective for students with lower prior grade point averages, replicating previous work ( Hulleman and Harackiewicz, 2009 ; Hulleman et al. , 2010 ). Further, it proved to be effective for URM students and particularly effective in improving course grades (by ∼0.5 grade points) for students who were both first-generation (FG) college students (neither parent earned a 4-year degree) and URM, reducing the achievement gap for FG-URM students by 61%. Beyond grades, students who wrote the utility value essays reported greater interest in biology and were more likely to continue to the second course in the biology sequence and persist in their STEM majors than students who did not write utility value essays ( Canning et al. , 2018 ).

What happens after successful findings such as these are published? Faculty not involved in the initial intervention testing phase rarely adopt novel interventions, despite the multiple dissemination outlets, publicity, and professional associations that emphasize adopting evidence-based practices (e.g., Gess-Newsome et al. , 2003 ; Henderson et al. , 2011; Andrews and Lemons, 2015 ). There are multiple points in the process between publication of findings and broad implementation where barriers may exist. Getting findings and implementation guides into the hands of faculty can be difficult, for example. But even when faculty get such information, they often decide not to implement the new practice in their own classes, and the aim of our work is to systemically study this decision-making process.

What does it take to get faculty to adopt a diversity-enhancing intervention (e.g., the UVI or others) in their classrooms? What obstacles arise? What strategies facilitate faculty’s willingness to intervene in their classrooms to diversify the science workforce? Faculty are principal change agents in higher education ( Beale et al. , 2013 ; Kezar et al. , 2015 ), so answering these questions is a critical next step in intervention research. We must better understand the intervention implementation process ; if we do not, we risk failing at scaling up and sustaining diversity-enhancing interventions.

Diversity Intervention—Resistance to Action Model

We draw on organizational theories of diversity resistance and social psychological theories of decision making to inform a model for predicting and understanding possible resistance to and support for implementing and sustaining a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. Framing intervention implementation as a “helping action” leads us to use Thomas and Plaut’s ( 2008 ) inspired adaption of Latané and Darley’s ( 1970 ) decision model of helping. Latané and Darley developed their classic social psychological model of helping to describe why people sometimes do (and do not) help others in emergency situations. Theirs was the first model to highlight the importance of social cues serving as information; when the situation is ambiguous, people look to others to determine whether the situation is, in fact, an emergency and whether their personal action is required. They coined the terms “bystander effect” and “diffusion of responsibility” to describe the situation when no individual among a group helps someone in need because they do not interpret the event as an emergency, do not see anyone else helping, assume someone else will help, or they are not sure how to help ( Darley and Latane, 1968 ). Following Thomas and Plaut (2008) , we conceptualize implementing a diversity intervention as a “helping” action and articulate an inspired process model of social cognitive inputs that delineates similar decision steps that lead to faculty deciding to take action and implement a diversity-enhancing intervention in their classes. We further expected that several social psychological factors, derived from the bystander intervention research, would function as barriers to “helping” and reduce the likelihood of intervention implementation.

Our diversity intervention—resistance to action model adopts the key inputs from Latane and Darley’s model of helping to understand faculty’s decision to implement (or not) an evidence-based diversity-enhancing intervention, as follows: 1) notice that underrepresentation is a problem, 2) interpret underrepresentation as needing immediate action, 3) assume responsibility, and 4) know how to help. We detail each input in the sections below. Figure 1 illustrates the model, starting at the bottom with noticing the problem of underrepresentation in biology, with decision inputs along the left of the figure and obstacles to helping on the right. The obstacles included in our figure represent social psychological factors shown to influence other bystander intervention models; we organize the obstacles that we predict to be relevant at each step in the conceptual model. Thus, achieving the result of a helping action (implementing a classroom diversity-enhancing intervention) requires affirmation of multiple model inputs and overcoming many psychological obstacles. We assume that any given obstacle can stop the decision-making process at that step for a given faculty member, leading to inaction, but note that like the original model of helping, this process model can be, but is not necessarily, a linear process ( Darley and Latane, 1968 ).

Diversity intervention—resistance to action model decision inputs and potential obstacles.

Input 1: Notice That Underrepresentation within Biology Is a Problem.

One stumbling block (and one opportunity source) in the process of diversity interventions is that faculty may not notice that diversity in the field is lacking or assume it is simply a “normal” problem and/or that others are already addressing the problem. Faculty may expect everyone (including minorities) to “assimilate” to the classroom structures in place long held up by “tradition.” Some faculty, for example, might assume they should ignore a student’s race and gender and take a “color-blind” approach to teaching. Yet decades of research documents that a color-blind approach reproduces and even exacerbates inequality ( Richeson and Nussbaum, 2004 ; Plaut et al. , 2009 ). Assimilation expectations contribute to more bias and less engagement by URM students; in contrast, embracing difference and centering nondominant voices is related to a positive diversity climate that results in greater psychological engagement by minorities ( Plaut et al. , 2009 , 2020 ). The decision to implement a diversity-enhancing intervention, then, likely depends on whether faculty recognize the homogeneity of the field and whether they see the value of a truly diverse and multicultural workforce. Alternatively, even if faculty recognize underrepresentation in the field of biology, they may not recognize it as a problem in their local (i.e., institutional or departmental) context. Faculty may assume, for example, that other programs or universities are addressing the field’s problem, thereby removing diversity as a relevant problem at their local level.

Input 2: Interpret Underrepresentation in Biology as Needing Immediate Action.

Research on bystander inventions suggest that people look to others for cues to determine whether a problem requires immediate action. For diversity interventions, it is essential to get faculty to carefully consider and process information about the urgency of the problem with an open mind, and this can often be achieved if the communicator is someone with whom they typically agree or identify ( Wood, 2000 ). If the faculty member learns about the intervention, for example, from a communicator who is suspected to have an agenda or a self-interest, the message has much less influence ( Moskowitz, 1996 ). Top-down mandates and inauthentic diversity initiatives can lead to “diversity fatigue” that undermine intervention adoption efforts ( Lam, 2018 ; Smith et al. , 2021 ). Unfortunately, even within the academy, data related to diversity and discrimination can be met with suspicion ( Handley et al. , 2015 ) and alone will not pave the route to intervention implementation (e.g., Henderson et al. , 2011). Importantly, seeing colleagues do nothing provides relevant social information—in this case, faculty are likely to draw the conclusion that the problem does not require immediate action if they see that others in their same position are not acting with urgency. This phenomenon, called “pluralistic ignorance,” was identified in Latané and Darley (1970) and illustrates that people who want to help often remain silent or do not take action because they (incorrectly) assume that most others disagree with the need to help (e.g., Kitts, 2003 ; O’Gorman, 1975 ). Such pluralistic ignorance, for example, influences men’s allyship behaviors toward women in STEM; men want to help, but wrongly assume no one else does, and misperceiving the group norm results in inaction ( De Souza and Schmader, 2021 ). As such, the role of perceived group norms and social connections likely influences faculty’s change efforts within the undergraduate biology classroom ( Andrews et al. , 2016 ).

Input 3: Assume Responsibility to Intervene.

Many faculty might assume the responsibility for promoting diversity lies in the hands of university administrators (e.g., chief diversity officers) and that instructors need not bear direct responsibility. In this case, such a bystander effect implies a “diffusion of responsibility” for who should intervene ( Garcia et al. , 2002 ). The diffusion of responsibility increases as the number of alternative people who could help increases. In this case, the assumption is that someone else will help or that someone has already helped. Unclear expectations and lack of accountability contribute to diffusion of responsibility (e.g., Wegner and Schaefer, 1978). It is thus imperative to take advantage of social cues and social networks that emphasize prosocial goals, the value of diversity, and the need for each person to contribute to structural change to produce positive outcomes ( Abbate et al. , 2013 ; Campbell and O’Meara, 2013 ; Kiyama et al. , 2012 ). Of course, faculty must also know how to intervene.

Input 4: Know How to Intervene.

Faculty must first know the research on what works. Then, after faculty learn of an intervention that effectively closes equity gaps, they must also feel confident in knowing how to implement it correctly and feel supported to carry out the intervention. Much goes into the design and implementation of an intervention, and protocols must be written in a way that faculty feel able to carry out the intervention and simultaneously feel they have autonomy in adapting the intervention successfully. Even minor changes in intervention protocol could yield null results or, worse, create harm by unintentionally triggering other psychological processes ( Wilson, 2006 ). When faculty do feel confident about how to intervene, similar to the bystander model of helping, faculty must next consider the “cost” of helping ( Darley and Baston, 1973 ); from the time and effort associated with helping to the resources and rewards of taking action. The question becomes what type of information and how much support do faculty need to feel competent and able to adapt the intervention?

Obstacles to Helping.

As illustrated on the right side of Figure 1 , a wide range of obstacles can derail the path to action. The obstacles in our model are conceptually similar to the social psychological obstacles to helping identified by Latané and Darley (1970) and Thomas and Plaut (2008) , including pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility, and perceived costs of helping. Considering how these obstacles manifest in the context of faculty work and faculty pedagogical decision making may help us to understand why (and when) we observe a gap between motivated intentions and actual behavior ( Bathgate et al. , 2019 ; De Souza and Schmader, 2021 ).

Overview of the Present Study

As the first study focused on this model, our aims were to: 1) examine the potential for our model to explain instructors’ decisions related to diversity interventions and 2) conduct an initial exploration of how faculty think about diversity in general and diversity-enhancing interventions in particular. We developed an exploratory survey measure with subscales mapping onto our four conceptual model inputs and examined whether biology faculty responses on this survey were associated with their perceptions of, value for, and likelihood of implementing a specific diversity-enhancing intervention that we described to them (the UVI). We also conducted interviews with these faculty to explore how faculty think about diversity interventions more broadly. The interviews explored how mechanisms of resistance might manifest and function within our model, eliciting participants’ general perceptions of diversity-related issues, nuanced beliefs about and attitudes toward implementing diversity-enhancing interventions in general, and the UVI in particular.

We used an embedded mixed-methods approach, in which participants first completed a qualitative in-depth, semistructured interview and then completed a survey immediately after. The survey items align specifically to model inputs. From the interviews, we sought to understand the nuances of beliefs associated with our inputs for faculty participants, as well as both active and passive forms of resistance and support. Importantly, we did not design the interview protocol to directly test model input hypotheses, nor did we aim to quantify the qualitative data as further evidence of the salience of the four inputs in faculty participants’ thinking. Rather, the purpose of the interviews was to deepen our understanding of the ideas and beliefs faculty have related to diversity and diversity interventions. All research activities were carried out with institutional review board approval from San Diego State University (IRB no. HS2018-0018). Participants were given a $100 gift card for their time and effort in completing the interview and survey.

Researcher Positionality Statement

In advancing the call for transparency of perspective across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies with higher education ( Wells, and Stage, 2015 ) and STEM education research ( Hampton et al. , 2021 ), we recognize positionality and reflexivity as important components to our study. Thus, it was critical for each of us to examine our roles, possible bias, and influence on the research (reflexivity) and to account for how our social positioning influences our research design, use of theory, data collection, application of analytic and statistical techniques, and interpretation of results ( Lipscombe et al. , 2021 ). The authors have listed the social identifies and roles that they believe to be most relevant to their positionality on this paper. D.B.T. identifies as a White man and first-generation college student and has worked as a faculty member for more than 12 years at two minority-serving institutions (MSIs). His research focuses on how motivation is influenced by social processes, including one’s social identities and social interactions. He also works to improve educational programs, particularly those designed to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in science and math education. M.-J.Y. is a queer BIWOC (Black/Indigenous/Woman of Color) postdoctoral scholar fellow with academic training in mixed-methods approaches in STEM education, biology, and Black studies. She draws on her multiple underrepresented identities in the STEM fields and higher education as she navigates American institutions of higher learning in varied roles as a first-generation college student, instructor, staff, and researcher. For over a decade, F.A.H. has focused her STEM education research on underrepresented and minoritized students and policy issues related to equity. This work draws on nearly two decades of experience as a higher education professional at several MSIs, including 15+ years of experience teaching at the college-level across four research universities, including serving as a tenure-track faculty member for the past nine years. Her scholarship is also enhanced by her personal experience as a Latina, low-income, first-generation college student, and community college graduate, who attended several MSIs. J.L.S. identifies as a woman, a lesbian, and was a first-generation college student. Her primary research interest is on how societal norms and stereotypes undermine or support people’s motivational experience. Her position as an academic leader and scholar-activist guide her approach to reshaping structures to positively impact research motivation and ensuring the highest level of integrity, inclusion, and ethics.

Participants and Recruitment

We recruited 40 faculty participants from eight 4-year U.S. universities, intentionally spread across the country, with five professors at each campus. We recruited participants via nonprobability snowball sampling ( Babbie, 2016 ). Team members emailed their biology department connections at various institutions to introduce the study and asked these connections to help forward study information to their colleagues. Potential participations were invited to take part in a study “that looks at pedagogical decision making in biology classrooms” and were given a flier that described the 60- to 90-minute interview as “aimed at gaining a better understanding of factors that inform teaching practices in introductory biology courses.” Referrals from faculty colleagues enhanced desirability to elicit interest to participate based on group membership status.

Potential faculty participants were first asked to complete an online prescreening questionnaire, which provided key information on participant attributes (demographics, types of classes and students they teach) and confirmed eligibility (i.e., currently teach or recently taught introductory-level or lower-division biology courses in a 4-year university). All participants ( N = 40) but one (a full-time postdoc with research and teaching responsibilities) held full-time faculty positions, with 57.5% tenure-track research faculty and 40% teaching-track faculty with mechanisms for promotion. Participants ranged in age from 31 to 75 years old (M = 51.92 years old). Of this sample, 45% were women, and 77.5% White, with the remaining participants identifying as Asian, Latinx, or multiracial. Additionally, 37.5% of the sample reported being a first-generation college-going student, 15% being recent immigrants or naturalized American citizens, and 7.5% identifying as LGBTQIA. With respect to their institutional contexts, seven of the eight institutions where these faculty work are considered as large public universities with ∼20,000 to 40,000 undergraduate populations; five of these campuses are tier 1 research (R1) universities and two are MSIs. Only one of the eight sites is a private R1 university with ∼5000 undergraduates.

Survey Measures

All survey items are presented in Table 1 . To measure faculty participants’ endorsement of each of the four decision-making inputs proposed by the model, for the context of supporting diversity in biology, we adapted items from Nickerson et al. (2014) ’s measure of bystander intervention for bullying and sexual harassment. The measure consists of four subscales, mapping onto the four model inputs. To assess the value of the intervention, we measured the extent to which faculty value classroom diversity-enhancing interventions with five items drawn from research using the expectancy value theory of motivation (e.g., Eccles, 1983 ). All Likert-type items were statements to which faculty indicated a measure of agreement, from strongly disagree (1) to neither agree nor disagree (4) to strongly agree (7). Finally, we measured implementation likelihood with a single item that asked participants to estimate the likelihood they will implement a diversity-enhancing intervention in their classes this year, on a scale from 0 to 100. These measures were part of subset from a larger survey, and measures were presented in counterbalanced order.

Survey items and internal consistency statistics

a Implementation-likelihood item measured from 0 to 100. All other items measured from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

b α is Cronbach’s α measure of internal consistency.

Interview Design and Analysis

The interview portion of the study complements the quantitative survey through an embedded mixed-methods design, which intends for the two methods to answer corresponding research objectives to synthesize complementary quantitative and qualitative results to develop a more complete understanding of the phenomenon ( Creswell and Clark, 2011 ; Almalki, 2016 ). This allowed us to answer a secondary research aim with the qualitative data, which is tied to but different from the primary purpose of the quantitative analyses; in this case, to help explain how the mechanisms of resistance might manifest and function within model and to potentially identify strategies and solutions for overcoming obstacles. For example, the survey sought to quantify the extent to which faculty perceived underrepresentation is a problem that needs immediate action, while our interview questions elicited how participants conceptualize underrepresentation overall as an urgent problem to address (inputs 1 and 2). Furthermore, we were able to more deeply explore how these conceptual understandings are related to resistance and the potential impact on perceived value and adoption of diversity-enhancing interventions. Thus, while the purpose of quantitative analysis was to “test” the model, the qualitative analysis sought not only to better understand the nuances of participants’ decision-making processes, but to specifically examine how resistance manifests in faculty’s perceptions and practice and to inform possible strategies for action. To do this, we focused on the “emic” or insider’s perspective of faculty’s process, understanding, and meaning to discover the conceptual dimensions of central terms such as “diversity” and “underrepresentation” as a way to explore how faculty think about diversity in general and classroom diversity interventions in particular.

M.-J.Y. performed the 60- to 90-minute, in-depth, semistructured interviews, which were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Within the semistructured format, open-ended questions were used to give participants self-agency to provide rich data or “thick description” of what they interpret as relevant and significant in their experience ( Geertz, 1973 ; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015 ). The interview structure consisted of a quick introduction to build rapport, a qualitative dive into the participant’s positionality and praxis, and concluded with an introduction of the diversity-enhancing UVI by providing materials, evidence, and examples to elicit reactions on the feasibility of implementing such an intervention.

During the interview, participants’ prescreened demographic information was verbally verified and prompted follow-up questions on how and whether faculty members’ backgrounds inform their approaches to teaching and mentoring students. The semistructured interviews reflected distinct segments of questioning that aligned with the model, which allows us to draw concrete descriptions of participant experiences in relation to model inputs. For example, after referring to participants’ answers about their perceptions of gender, racial, and other representations (veteran status, transfer status, etc.) of diversity in their introductory biology classrooms, the interviewer asked the question, “Do you think underrepresentation is still an issue in your class/campus/field?” that relates to input 1: notice underrepresentation is a problem. See Table 2 for example interview questions.  Although the model inputs are numbered chronologically, the questions sometimes did not follow this chronological order due to the fluid nature of the semistructured interview on a participant-by-participant basis. As each participant had a unique background, perspective, personality, and conversation style, individuals could share information that was relevant to another input before the interviewer asked that input’s question. In different parts of the interview, participants would sometimes share contradictory statements about their beliefs and experiences. In this way, the same participant could provide very different insight into the same model input.

Model inputs and sample interview questions

Qualitative Coding

Professionally transcribed interview transcripts were merged with audio files of respective participants in NVivo, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. In vivo coding was performed by two trained coders, who highlighted specific portions of the transcripts and assigned them to nodes of code or “a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute” ( Saldana, 2016 ). Before the interviews, a preliminary parent code list was created based on the four model inputs and included codes to examine perceived obstacles. After all interviews were completed, M.-J.Y. then extended these five parent codes by generation of subcodes (and sometimes even sub-subcodes), based on an overview of emergent themes within each parent code. Developing codes that emerge from the experience of the participants is ideal instead of forcing participants’ own words to fit into theories that were derived from sources outside the actual interview ( Rowan, 1981 ). After expansion of the code list through peer debriefing, line-by-line coding identified more sub-subcodes that emerged from existing subcodes. To support the internal validity of the qualitative findings, interrater reliability calculated as percent agreement ranged between 85% and 98% across the pair of coders through an iterative process. At the completion of coding all transcripts, patterns were analyzed and themes emerged, with specific attention to the theoretical perspectives informing the study. Along with maximum variation sampling (of five professors per campus), rich, thick description from the in-depth interviews enhanced the external validity of the qualitative findings.

While the semistructured interview is dynamic in nature and allowed for follow-up questions to explore the model inputs, it was not rigidly structured to probe each of the model inputs in order. We present findings organized by model input to highlight the nuances of participants’ decision-making processes and specifically examine how resistance manifests in faculty’s perceptions and practices in ways that are conceptually connected to each input. We present faculty quotes with pseudonyms.

We organize the presentation of results by model input, but first provide an overview of descriptive survey data. Figure 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics for all survey measures, and Table 3 provides correlations among the survey variables. The small sample size limits the conclusions that can be drawn from significance tests of these correlations, but their overall magnitudes suggest moderate to strong relationships. The small sample size also limited our ability to adequately test for differences as a function of participant gender or ethnicity.

(A) Box-and-whisker plots showing the median and variation of the four model inputs and the value of intervention measures: (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree). The middle line in each box represents the median score for each measure of this faculty sample, while the far right side of the boxes represent the 75th percentile and the far left side of the boxes is the 25th percentile. The whiskers on the left and right represent the minimum and maximum scores, respectively, that are no greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range (scores within the box). Circles to the left of the whiskers are outliers beyond the range.  (B) Box-and-whisker plot of the median and variation in the reported percentage likelihood of implementing the UVI (0–100% likelihood). The middle line in the box represents the median score for implementation likelihood, while the far right side of the box represent the 75th percentile and the far left side of the box is the 25th percentile. The whiskers on the left and right represent the minimum and maximum scores, respectively, that are no greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range (scores within the box).

Correlations among survey measures a

a N values range from 39–40 per measures. Scales from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree, except-implementation likelihood, which ranges from 0 to 100.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

First, we note that, although faculty overall reported high value for the UVI and reported being more likely than not to implement the diversity-enhancing intervention, we observed large variation for the implementation-likelihood measure, indicating little consensus among biology faculty in our sample with respect to their readiness for implementing the diversity-enhancing classroom intervention.

Input 1: Notice That Underrepresentation within Biology Is a Problem

Survey results suggest that, on average, faculty reported that they notice underrepresentation as a problem at a level above the scale midpoint. Our measure of input 1 was highly correlated with input 2 (interpret underrepresentation as needing immediate action) and moderately correlated with input 3 (assume responsibility to intervene). Responses to input 1 also positively correlated with perceived value of the intervention but not with implementation likelihood. Indeed, this input subscale was the only one that did not positively correlate with implementation intentions.

When our corresponding quantitative and qualitative results are compared, survey results indicate that faculty generally notice underrepresentation as a problem, yet participants relayed mixed messages related to how they conceptualize underrepresentation when asked to elaborate in the interviews. While participants overwhelmingly characterized their classrooms and campuses as supportive of increasing gender and racial/ethnic diversity, this did not always translate into acknowledgment that underrepresentation is a problem, nor was there consistency and clarity in defining the problem. Two common themes were revealed among our participant interviews in 1) defining diversity and 2) relying on anecdotal observations as evidence.

Participant interviews revealed blurred understandings of underrepresentation and diversity, which included color-blind views, broad definitions of diversity, focusing on wide-ranging identities (i.e., gender, class, first-generation college students), as well as a disconnect from the roots of underrepresentation in historically racialized oppressive systems within the United States. Most faculty participants praised their increasingly diverse campus, ranging from taking pride in all the cultures represented to widening the lens of what factors count for diversity in their predominantly White institutions. Yet many participants harbored unclear views about diversity and underrepresentation. Some faculty expressed color-blind ideologies, which clearly served as a direct barrier to understanding underrepresentation as a problem, as when Professor Laluarie stated:

I don’t see race. I mean, at least I try not to […] People come in with their own biases […] once you remove that distinction of the binary [racial] distinction, the bias is gone. There is no bias. You can’t have a bias.

While others were not explicitly color-blind, many avoided discussion of racial/ethnic identities and focused on other social identities, such as gender, class, first-generation college students, or even broader definitions such as rural students. Spotlighting these other identities and even the gains in representation, such as through gender parity or pointing to the growing number of international students as markers for diversity, allowed participants to shift the conversation away from race. For example, when asked about underrepresentation, one professor at an urban metropolitan R1 expressed that “white guys are the minority now” based on her recent anecdotal accounts of seeing all of the international students in her classroom. Only through several follow-up questions did these same professors later acknowledge that African-American students are underrepresented in biology classrooms. Other participants were vague in their reference of international students, and one participant confused international students with students of color whose families emigrated to the United States at least a generation ago. Although seemingly well intentioned in vocalizing the value of diversity in enriching classroom interactions, Professor Vogel, who has taught for almost 20 years at a public R1 university in a suburb of one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the country, seemed unclear about what “immigrant” versus “international” means:

So they’re not necessarily just immigrants. They, maybe, have born, been raised and a few generations here in the United States, but they still are international, if that—and they identify as international. If that makes sense. We’ve got a large number of people that have come here or the parents have come here and then they are raised here. I think so, yeah. Is that what you call it? I guess that’s what you call it or third-generation immigrants. That their grandparents or their parents came but then they’re born and raised here.

A key ingredient for the successful adoption of diversity initiatives in higher education is having a clear, data-driven understanding of equity gaps ( Kezar et al. , 2015 ). However, faculty often seemed to be relying on anecdotal evidence. When asked if underrepresentation was still a problem, Professor Mordrake replied:

I think it probably is. I know we have fewer African-American students than we should probably have. If we were going to—if it was going to be a representative slice of students at [this university], I think it’s slightly under. Now, I don’t have hard numbers to back that up. It’s more of an impression. In terms of Latino students, I don’t have the impression that it’s underrepresented. And sort of like Asian, Pacific Island, etc. I think that’s kind of a group that I see a lot of. So I don’t know. I don’t have hard numbers. But I have had the impression that there are fewer African-American students studying biology than would be a representative slice of the population.

Input 2: Interpret Underrepresentation in Biology as Needing Immediate Action

Survey results suggest that, on average, faculty reported that they interpret underrepresentation in biology as needing immediate action at a level above the scale midpoint, though there was substantial variability in ratings, as shown in Figure 2 . Our measure of input 2 was highly correlated with input 1 (notice underrepresentation as needing immediate action) and moderately correlated with input 3 (assume responsibility to intervene). Responses to input 2 also positive correlated with both perceived value of the intervention and implementation likelihood.

From the interviews, even when participants expressed their commitment to diversity, few addressed such issues in a way that conveyed a strong sense of urgency for immediate action. Most faculty downplayed underrepresentation as a high-priority problem by normalizing underrepresentation and discussing underrepresentation or diversity in ways that were disconnected from equity and social justice. This response often took the form of averting attention to other universities that are also not diverse, or to other universities that enroll more students of color than their own campuses. For example, Professor Wilton compares the underrepresentation in his private R1 campus to both the locale and the country:

Maybe within certain groups, I would say. Considering [this] city…and our makeup, I would say the university doesn’t align with that at all … Yeah. But I’m certain with other American universities, I’m pretty sure we pretty much have the same kind of makeup as most of them.

Although Professor Wilton initially acknowledged his campus’s student population did not reflect the diversity of the local community, he then reframed this concern by suggesting that campuses all over the country look very similar in composition. This minimizes the attention to diversity concerns within his own local context, that is, the institution or department.

A similar approach was seen when professors acknowledged that one’s own campus is not designated as an MSI, with the implication that the MSI campuses are the ones charged with serving underrepresented populations. Diffusing responsibility to another campus and pointing out that one’s campus is no worse off than another obscures the need for immediate local action. Professor Solanas—a faculty member who is also an appointed diversity administrator at a public R1 institution—observed:

Our [campus] student body does not reflect [this state]. Now there are some that do, like [these two other campuses]. I can’t remember, there’s a term for this. Where you have—it’s usually Latino populations, which is very large in [this state]. And so there’s only a couple of campuses, I think, that reflect that diversity and [we are] not one of them.

Furthermore, Professors Wilton’s and Solanas’s quotes both reflect a broader sentiment that was prevalent among participants in which underrepresentation and diversity were not linked to equity and social justice aims. In other words, diversity definitions were quite broad (see input 1) and underrepresentation discussions were primarily focused on numbers or structural diversity rather than problematizing and dismantling underlying structural barriers perpetuated by racism, sexism, and other enduring systems of oppression. Within our model, social cues inform one’s interpretation of whether addressing underrepresentation is an immediate need. Faculty’s uncomplicated perceptions of underrepresentation may be fostered by what Professor March describes as the overarching instrumental messaging from the institution:

I would say the university’s priority seems to be on getting diverse students in the door and then it ends there, right? It doesn’t, necessarily, completely end there, but their priority seems to be frontloaded as opposed to backloaded, […] it’s counterproductive to bring in a student for representation.

This disconnected perspective can also be seen at the departmental level, where some professors resisted evidence-based pedagogical initiatives by reinforcing the idea that they are already thinking about or performing classroom innovations on their own. Indeed, faculty generally felt they were proactive in their classrooms, with the majority reporting they already perform actions that promote pedagogical innovation. Further discussion revealed that the kinds of interventions being implemented were not typically diversity enhancing, and the idea that they were already engaging in broadly innovative strategies led to the conclusion for many faculty that there was little reason or urgency for considering additional innovations, such as diversity-enhancing interventions. For example, after sharing lots of details about all the pedagogical activities that he has used in a public R1 institution, Professor Monahan then expressed his distaste for classroom innovations that come from administration and even from colleagues who specialize in biology education:

They have these discipline-based education research postdocs, so it’s called the DBER Fellow. And they’re trying to tell people how to do—“Oh, it would be better if you did this in your class.” And I think, “You’ve never even taught a big class before,” and I’ve done maybe 65 or 70 big classes and thought a lot about it. So it’s helpful to hear about stuff, but at least in my personal case, I’m already thinking about a lot of it and talking with people anyway.

Thus, a barrier to interpreting underrepresentation as needing immediate action appears to include a feeling that one is “doing something already” that is already helping students, and not necessarily buying into recommendations based on empirical evidence of the effectiveness or from experts in the biology education field.

Input 3: Assume Responsibility to Intervene

Faculty reported that they assume responsibility to intervene at a mean level higher than all other inputs. Although the internal consistency measure for this scale was low, our measure of input 3 was moderately correlated with all other input measures. Responses to input 3 were also strongly positively correlated with both perceived value of the intervention and implementation likelihood. One reason that internal consistency of the survey measure may be low is because different items reflect two key themes that emerged (often among different participants) in the interviews: 1) deflecting responsibility to others both within and outside of the institution and 2) describing personal responsibility as contingent on adequate circumstances and resources. While faculty who did assume responsibility described navigating the resistance of others and barriers in gaining shared buy-in, when asked “Whose responsibility it is to address underrepresentation?,” some faculty shifted the focus away from their classrooms, departments, and institutions to emphasize the responsibility of outside sectors and agencies. For example, Professor Chen said:

I mean, I think, there’s work that could be done at the department level to promote diversity, but the pool of candidates needs to be there. And so I think it needs to come from the governmental level. […] I feel like we need to diversify the field, but first, we need to train the people to go into the field. And that’s a big—there’s not a lot of funding for that.

In addition, faculty focused on the role of K–12 in contributing to the “pipeline problem,” which averted attention to areas that were outside their personal or their institutions’ control. Participants generally agreed that addressing underrepresentation is a campus-wide responsibility, citing leadership, faculty, staff, and students as responsible actors, though rarely focusing on their own behaviors and more often diffusing responsibility across undefined sources. For example, Professor Huang described a “community responsibility,” wherein there needed to be open dialogue across stakeholders. Others focused more narrowly on the responsibility of administration, like Professor Sobchak, who noted that responsibility “comes from pretty high up in the university to try hard to increase underrepresented groups in STEM especially. They mandate things.” Even participants who said they do support top-down diversity-enhancing initiatives also expressed concern about the burden of having to adapt to university policies and initiatives. For example, public R1 instructor, Professor Cunningham, described this burden of fulfilling mandatory accommodations for students with disabilities that he supports in theory, but struggles to meet in reality:

So whether that’s proctors or somebody just—it just takes up more of my time. And like I said, I’m happy to do it. However, it bites into everything else that I need to do and it takes time away from other students. It takes time away from other things that are going to help me actually progress in my career, whether it’s research or any kind of other pedagogical exploration trying to figure out new things what to do […] My colleague who cotaught with me […] he’s seen it increase more and more the amount of time that he’s had to make for accommodations and he has the same sentiment. He’s not opposed to it. He thinks they’re good ideas. It’s just really, really draining and he wishes the institution would provide more support for that [….] And then the instructional institutional side of things isn’t saying, “Oh wait, they’re doing all these accommodations. Maybe it’s overburdening our instructors who are already swamped. Let’s see how we can help them.” That’s not happening.

Professor Cunningham (as well as his colleague) felt as though he was helping students but was frustrated by the lack of support that the university gives to the instructors implementing these policies. Certainly, resources are a valid concern, but a narrow focus on the lack of resources may also represent a form of resistance. Throughout our interviews, a clear tension emerged between faculty wanting autonomy and independence from top-down initiatives and faculty’s focus on a lack of university-supported resources to justify inaction. All participants expressed aversion to top-down recommendations on improving student success in biology classrooms, especially from university administrators and those that affect what happens in their own classrooms.

Many professors we interviewed did assume responsibility to make pedagogical innovations. Such efforts, however, seem to need to be started by an innovation-minded figure who can navigate various kinds of resistance from both colleagues and administration. Public R1 instructor Professor Sousa recalls the challenges and rewards of initiating active-learning opportunities in her department and beyond:

When I first started with active learning and embracing inclusivity, inequity, and diversity in classrooms, and I started running workshops on it, and I started being more subversive, not even telling people that the reason why they should be more active in their classroom or the reason why they might want to use clickers in their classroom was because there was a lot of data that showed that they helped a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds. And they performed better whether or not the instructor was aiming to do that or not, right? So there’s stealth ways to get people to be more inclusive. Any place that wanted a workshop, I ran it…. But at first pass … just showing people that have never seen it before what it could look like, you could just watch the ideas popping into their head. And I thought, “This, in the end, might actually work out.” So I think that that’s—I did not feel empowered to do anything 20 years ago.

Professor Sousa seems personally invested in promoting “inclusivity, inequity, and diversity in classrooms”—something that she felt she could not do decades ago as a woman in a STEM field. She even took it upon herself to advance active learning in a stealthy way—sometimes not disclosing that it can be a diversity-enhancing initiative in order to eliminate any resistance from any potentially suspecting faculty and university administrators who may pigeonhole her as a diversity champion.

Input 4: Know How to Help

When presented with information about and materials on a specific diversity-enhancing pedagogical intervention—we used the UVI ( Harackiewicz et al. , 2016 ), survey results suggest that, on average, faculty reported being confident that they know how to intervene at a level above the scale midpoint. Our measure of input 4 was positively correlated with input 3 (assume responsibility to intervene). It was also strongly correlated with perceived value of the intervention and implementation likelihood.

During the interviews, most faculty participants also enumerated the various obstacles and costs related to implementation. We probed for the reactions to the UVI in particular to try and understand the perceived obstacles—and solutions—that emerged. Concern about the time and effort it takes to implement the UVI was expressed by most faculty. For example, in his public R1 institution, Professor Cunningham anticipates strong “pushback” against this classroom innovation because of the amount of time it would take:

There hasn’t been any faculty [pushback], so much so is most of it’s I just don’t have time to do this or I don’t think this will have that much impact. And so they just don’t do it. So it’s not that they don’t agree with it so much as they don’t—either they feel it’s not worth their time, or they just don’t have the time. And it’s usually they don’t have the time. Very rarely have I heard this is a waste of time or you shouldn’t be doing this. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that, especially at [our campus].

Faculty often expressed feeling overwhelmed and overworked in their jobs, so it is not surprising that asking faculty instructors to add something to their courses created an obstacle to action. The time needed for grading was a clear concern for the UVI, in particular. Participants communicated their concern with the time needed to grade a writing assignment in a large introductory biology (even with the provided rubric for grading and short nature of the writing assignment itself). When identified, this concern typically produced one of two outcomes. Although many faculty dismissed the practicality of the UVI because of the grading costs, a few others proactively offered solutions to the grading problem. They described ideas such as using the provided rubrics for standardization, online blind peer-grading (of the personal connection part of the UVI assignment), and sampling student responses for quick overview of examples being used. Inspired by a previous department-wide effort to promote student writing called “biologist’s journal” at a public MSI, Professor Huang created a way to facilitate grading such assignments in large introductory biology classes:

We’ve done those biologist’s journal[s]. I mean, for 300 people, I mean, I spend about 20, 30 minutes a week. We sample. I just sample, and then the TA is kind of taking care of the—as long as they meet the words requirement, turn in on time, and then not talking about garbage on top, and they will get the credit…. And I do a sample. By reading about 10 or 20 out of 300 people, you get a very good representative feeling of what they’re talking about … we do points.

Professor Huang’s solution demonstrates that a professor can be hands-on yet also efficient with grading a large class. His self-initiative offers creative solutions to help alleviate the perceived and actual costs associated with implementing an intervention such as the UVI.

Tenure-track research faculty also specifically discussed the concerns related to time associated with implementing pedagogical innovations at the expense of their time on other important outside efforts, such as research. One participant from a large R1 university, Professor Sobchak, relayed the realities of the reward system for tenure-track research professors:

For my research faculty, what they’re being judged on is their research and their research grants. They are not being—75%, that’s where the weight is. So you’ve got to take that into consideration when you’re asking them about effort in teaching.

This statement illustrates the difficulty of pedagogy innovation when teaching is viewed as secondary or even misaligned with a research academic’s professional identity ( Brownell and Tanner, 2012 ).

Participants also indicated a specific concern associated with overloading students with more work, as there already exist many class requirements and activities. Professors considered student buy-in as an important factor when making decisions about what to use or add to the existing curriculum. For example, public R1 instructor Professor Pfister dissected his pedagogical decision-making process about realistically incorporating UVI in his classes:

And so it’s not just finding the points for this, it’s if I add another thing in there, do I now have too many things and the students start getting scattered and losing track? And so what would I take out if I was going to put this in? So that’s the first thing I’d have to think about. Okay? Because I’m not sure that adding another thing is going to be—based on past experience, adding another thing can be problematic.

Certainly, it can overburden students to have more work added to what they already have to do in class; but if the instructor prioritizes the rationale for a specific assignment, then this new requirement can easily replace another existing activity.

We presented the diversity intervention—resistance to action model and examined the potential for our model to explain instructors’ decisions related to implementing diversity interventions. Overall, findings suggest that our theoretical model, which frames intervention as a “helping” action, is useful for understanding why social psychological factors promote or create obstacles to faculty decisions to implement (or not) a diversity-enhancing classroom intervention. Comparing study findings with our predicted model inputs and obstacles derived from social psychological theory and research reveals that, although the model was generally supported, the data did not directly address all predictions, support for some predictions remains ambiguous, and new predictions or extensions to the model are warranted.

Both survey and interview findings generally support the concepts in this model. Survey findings linked faculty beliefs corresponding to the model inputs to (in)action via perceptions of value and implementation intentions toward diversity-enhancing classroom interventions. These outcomes matter, because behavioral intentions are the best predictors of actual behavior (which was not possible to measure in this study context; Ajzen, 1991 ; Kim and Hunter, 1993 ; Webb and Sheeran, 2006 ). The interview data illustrated that, in many ways, the predictors of support and forms of resistance among faculty are similar to those seem within other organizational contexts ( Plaut et al. , 2020 ). Just as the survey findings demonstrated high correlations among the model inputs, interview findings suggested that information associated with each of the model inputs was relevant to shaping faculty decision making, even if faculty lived experiences do not follow the specific order. Relative to the neatly organized model in Figure 1 , we learned that the specific alignment of obstacles to steps is murkier than predicted.

One clear takeaway from our study is that the social psychological obstacles to helping behaviors also emerged in this context of biology faculty decision making when considering implementing a diversity-enhancing intervention. Like Thomas and Plaut’s ( 2008 ) model, as well as Latané and Darley’s ( 1970 ) bystander intervention model, our findings underscore that faculty decision making is not carried out in isolation. Rather, biology faculty look to (real or imagined) others, typically their peers (and decidedly not their administrative leaders), for social information that guides: their interpretation of whether underrepresentation is a problem, whether it requires immediate attention, whether they are personally responsible for taking steps to ameliorate the problem in their local contexts, and whether the obstacles are too great to warrant helping.

Study findings were mixed, however, with respect to support for our predictions about specific placements of social psychological obstacles in the model. Themes associated with diffusion of responsibility were highlighted throughout the interviews. Although we expected diffusion of responsibility to emerge as a barrier between “interpret underrepresentation as needing immediate action” (input 2) and “assume responsibility” (input 3), these themes emerged as relevant at multiple points in the model. Compared with other models of helping, diffusion of responsibility seems to be a particularly problematic obstacle for faculty because it is normative to locate the problem and/or responsibility of solving the problem of underrepresentation to many sources, including those earlier in the education pathway (e.g., K–12 education), to other universities or institutions (e.g., MSIs), and to others at one’s own university (e.g., institutional or departmental policies or offices).

In contrast, themes associated with pluralistic ignorance did not emerge clearly in the interviews. In bystander intervention models, pluralistic ignorance is a key barrier to interpreting the need for immediate action. When people see others also not providing help, they interpret the inaction as a cue that the problem is not urgent. What is unclear from our findings is whether pluralistic ignorance is not important in the faculty decision-making process or whether our methods did not adequately capture this obstacle. Although only further research can properly answer this question, we believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Pluralistic ignorance typically derives from the lack of action; that is, social cues inferred from what people are not doing. In hindsight, we did not design our interviews to optimally focus on what did not happen among one’s peers. For example, several faculty described that their peers engaged in innovative pedagogies. Participants did not explicitly say that they attributed these innovation efforts as a cue that further action (focused on diversity) was not necessary. From the theoretical lens of our model, we interpret the lack of discussion about diversity-enhancing strategies, specifically, as social information signaling the normative belief that the problem of underrepresentation does not require further immediate action in the local departmental context beyond the more general innovative pedagogical efforts already taking place. Of course, this inference extrapolates beyond the data. More targeted research is therefore needed to better test the model’s predictions associated with pluralistic ignorance and related social cues inferred from inaction at the local department level.

Updating the Model and Generating New Hypotheses

Findings also suggest that our adaptation of the bystander intervention model for this specific decision context should be updated and that our initial exploration of how faculty think about diversity in general and diversity-enhancing interventions in particular helped identify new obstacles to incorporate into our framework. Table 4 displays the emergent themes related to resistance or obstacles to intervening that we identified.

Summary of resistance themes that emerged in interviews

Each of the emergent themes identified in our interviews provides greater specificity with respect to faculty decision making than would be expected from adapting bystander intervention models from other contexts. For example, much of the prior research on resistance to diversity in organizations has focused on participants’ views about their organization ( Thomas and Plaut, 2008 ). In the case of biology faculty, we observed tension between beliefs about underrepresentation as a problem in the field of biology versus in one’s local institutional or departmental context. The nature of a faculty position is both highly autonomous and embedded in layers of institutional structures (e.g., departments, colleges, universities, and the field of biology). Unlike other organizational contexts in which top-down policies can more easily define problems and direct specific actions of employees, faculty have much more autonomy to choose which problems they address, and how vigorously they pursue those problems. Many of the emergent themes reflect the subtle ways in which faculty passively resist personally taking on the problem of underrepresentation within the space they most control, their classrooms. Faculty were often easily dissuaded from action via a wide range of obstacles that did not appear to us to be insurmountable. Instead of engaging in problem solving about how to redistribute effort or seek help to implement the UVI, for example, concerns about time and task effort resulted in a decision to stop considering it as a practical option. Further, instead of taking personal responsibility to overcome obstacles, participants tended to expect their peers to lead pedagogical innovations and relayed information about the pedagogical innovations happening in their departments, such as active-learning strategies and technology-mediated tools. That said, a few participants proactively took personal responsibility—even if it meant enacting equity-enhancing curricular changes in stealthy manners to prevent even further pushback from colleagues, which is a tried-and-true intervention technique (e.g., Latimer et al. , 2014 ).

Limitations

The study has several key limitations. First, we only measured value and implementation likelihood—not actual behavior; and our methods did not allow for causal conclusions. What is needed next is a concerted effort to experimentally test strategies for promoting greater implementation intentions and behavioral implementation of diversity-enhancing interventions (including but not limited to the UVI). Identification of factors that lead to resistance seem to imply strategies to promote action, but a careful empirically driven approach to determine strategies that actually lead to behavior is essential to generate empirical scientific knowledge to advance implementation of diversity-enhancing interventions at scale.

Second, we focused only on decisions to implement diversity interventions and cannot disentangle decisions about diversity-enhancing interventions, specifically, from decisions to implement other pedagogical innovations. Many participants did describe other innovations that they or someone in their department had tried (e.g., active learning), and in general, participants perceived themselves to be pedagogically minded (which is likely due to self-selection into a study described as focused on pedagogical decision making). While we expect many of the barriers that prevent faculty from implementing any pedagogical innovation also matter in this context, even among this group we identified many themes that are particularly tied to the nature of the problem of underrepresentation. Further work inspired by our model would benefit from more fully articulating distinctions between decision making for pedagogical innovations in general and diversity-enhancing interventions specifically. Drawing from organizational and social psychological work can help refine predictions about what is unique when the target intervention focuses on diversity (e.g., Thomas and Plaut, 2008 ; Plaut et al. , 2020 ).

Another limitation of our findings is the small sample size. Strong conclusions based on the survey data should be tempered because of the small number of faculty participants. In addition to concerns about generalizability, particularly with the emergent themes identified that we did not initially predict, with only 40 participants, statistical metrics for internal reliability of scales and correlations between variables are unlikely to represents stable population estimates. It is difficult to know, for example, whether the low alpha for the subscale measuring model input 3 would improve with more participants or whether further refinement of items is needed. As we noted earlier, one possible explanation for this low internal consistency is that different items reflect two key themes that emerged (often among different participants) in the interviews: 1) deflecting responsibility to others both within and outside of the institution and 2) describing personal responsibility as contingent on adequate circumstances and resources. Even with low internal consistency, this subscale demonstrated reasonable predictive utility within this sample, suggesting that further attention to measurement of faculty decision making is worthwhile within biology education research, where most of the theoretical and measurement research focuses on students. Greater refinement of measures for faculty, including our measures but also more generally, is an important goal for future work.

Implications: Moving from Resistance to Action

Extrapolating beyond the specific findings of this study, the diversity intervention—resistance to action model holds potential for advancing discussions and strategies to support greater implementation scale for diversity-enhancing interventions. The model also offers insights into strategies to overcome key social psychological obstacles to action (intervention implementation). One reason that many efforts for pedagogical change within departments and colleges may not reach their full potential is that they rely on incomplete (or underidentified) models of change. Unsuccessful change efforts may particularly miss the importance of social information for faculty decisions. For faculty and administrators interested in addressing issues of resistance to initial implementation or sustaining implementation of interventions supporting diversity at their institutions, attending to the social information within the local context (e.g., department or course team) will provide opportunities and potential insights for levers for change. Our model suggests several strategies to encourage intervention adoption by faculty.

First, institutions must clearly define the problem of underrepresentation with data-driven analysis. Efforts to promote adoption of diversity-enhancing classroom interventions should start with faculty development designed to increase awareness that diversity and inclusion is lacking in biology, as well as reasons why this is the case. Though this call is not new, faculty participants in our study tended to not think deeply about the systemic nature or causes of historical underrepresentation as it connects to their classes, and many incorrectly believed that a color-blind approach will help solve the problems related to racism and the lack of diversity ( Richeson and Nussbaum, 2004 ; Plaut et al. , 2009 ). Participants demonstrated a need for clear and accurate data, as they often relied on anecdotal observations to shape their perceptions of underrepresentation, which led to ambiguity and downplaying the breadth of the problem ( Begeny et al. , 2020 ). Though inequity data and information are subject to interpretation and confirmation biases ( Handley et al. , 2015 ), data can be used to help foster doubt in current beliefs, challenge existing assumptions, and help people to consider different and new constructions of how to confront disciplinary norms that perpetuate inequities ( Kezar et al. , 2015 ), particularly if complemented by learning about historical context and underlying causes of inequities (e.g., Cech et al. , 2017 ). How to introduce the data, which data to use, and who responds well to the data are key questions for future research.

Further, our model underscores that departmental norms about how faculty talk about the nature of and solutions for the problem of underrepresentation need to be considered in change models. Peers can help other faculty see underrepresentation as an immediate need and can facilitate faculty taking personal responsibility for helping. Seeing positive outcomes of one’s peers’ efforts with pedagogical change can inspire others. We also expect that departmental and college administrators can regularly cue conversations about the urgency of underrepresentation and also encourage individual responsibility (though such efforts will likely only be successful if the administration is seen as providing tangible support and resources for individual change efforts). Indeed, one potential strategy for promoting action may be to support faculty autonomy and encourage departments to adopt a normative approach of applying the creative problem-solving strengths that faculty demonstrate as researchers toward teaching interventions. This effort could be strengthened by putting in place reward structures (i.e., annual reviews) that allow faculty to take risks to try new things in the classroom without overly worrying about course evaluations.

Finally, although not explicitly addressed in our theoretical model, promoting behavioral change will also require attention to and explicit conversations about the nature of both active and passive resistance. Throughout the interviews, it was rare for faculty to speak explicitly against the goals of broadening participation or improving diversity. An insidious consequence of passive resistance is that people can genuinely believe that they are “already doing” the work of a diversity champion or perceive that their own actions are already innovative and/or diversity enhancing, while actually passively reproducing the status quo. Helping faculty identify and understand the nature of passive resistance will be an important step in scaling up the adoption of empirically supported diversity-enhancing interventions.

Diversity science research across many disciplines has produced incredible knowledge about how to support learning for students from disadvantaged and marginalized identities. Our model and data highlight that science classroom activities that help close equity gaps are unlikely to be widely implemented and sustained without intense scrutiny into the faculty decision-making mindset. Faculty are in the unique positions of having authority and autonomy to guide what happens in their classrooms. To achieve our national STEM education and workforce goals, we believe it is necessary to approach the study of systematic resistance as an individual decision-making process within a cultural system of norms and social information. The diversity intervention—resistance to action model moves us in this direction, and our results point to the hard work that lies ahead.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (HRD 1759947). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We are grateful to Jennifer Poe for providing project support and data visualizations. We also thank the monitoring editor and anonymous reviewers for providing insightful and constructive feedback that improved this work.

• Abbate, C. S., Ruggieri, S., Boca, S. (2013). The effect of prosocial priming in the presence of bystanders. Journal of Social Psychology , 153(5), 619–622.  10.1080/00224545.2013.791658 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50(2), 179–211.  10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almalki, S. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research—Challenges and benefits. Journal of Education and Learning , 5(3), 288–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews, T. C., Conaway, E. P., Zhao, J., Dolan, E. L. (2016). Colleagues as change agents: How department networks and opinion leaders influence teaching at a single research university. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15(2), ar15.  10.1187/cbe.15-08-0170 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews, T. C., Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14(1), ar7.  10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Austin, A. (2011). Promoting evidence based change in undergraduate science education . Retrieved May 10, 2020, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf
• Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research. Boston: Cengage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bathgate, M. E., Aragón, O. R., Cavanagh, A. J., Frederick, J., Graham, M. J. (2019). Supports: A key factor in faculty implementation of evidence-based teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18(2), ar22.  10.1187/cbe.17-12-0272 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beale, R. L., Chesler, M. A., Ramus, E. (2013). Advocates for Diversity…or not: faculty members as change-agents? In In faculty identities and the challenge of diversity: Reflections on teaching in higher education . New York, NY: Paradigm Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny, C. T., Ryan, M. K., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Ravetz, G. (2020). In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Science Advances , 6(26), eaba7814.  10.1126/sciadv.aba7814 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11(4), 339–346.  10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell, C. M., O’Meara, K. (2013). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education , 55(1), 49–74.  10.1007/s11162-013-9303-x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canning, E. A., Harackiewicz, J. M., Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., Tibbetts, Y., Hyde, J. S. (2018). Improving performance and retention in introductory biology with a utility-value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology , 110(6), 834–849.  10.1037/edu0000244 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casad, B. J., Oyler, D. L., Sullivan, E. T., McClellan, E. M., Tierney, D. N., Anderson, D. A., Flammang, B. J. (2018). Wise psychological interventions to improve gender and racial equality in STEM. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 21(5), 767–787.  10.1177/1368430218767034 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cech, E. A., Metz, A., Smith, J. L., deVries, K. (2017). Epistemological dominance and social inequality: Experiences of Native American science, engineering, and health students. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 42(5), 743–774.  10.1177/0162243916687037 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darley, J. M., Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 27(1), 100–108. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darley, J. M., Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 8(4), 377–383. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.012 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Souza, L., Schmader, T. (2021). The misjudgment of men: Does pluralistic ignorance inhibit allyship? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .  10.1037/pspi0000362 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivtes: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., Nikiforova, I. (2009). Successful programs for undergraduate women in science and engineering: Adapting versus adopting the institutional environment. Research in Higher Education , 50(4), 333–353.  10.1007/s11162-009-9120-4 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83(4), 843–853.  10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 310–323). New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal , 40(3), 731–767.  10.3102/00028312040003731 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hampton, C., Reeping, D., Ozkan, D. S. (2021). Positionality statements in Engineering Education Research: A look at the hand that guides the methodological tools. Studies in Engineering Education , 1(2), 126–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 112(43) 13201–13206. 10.1073/pnas.1510649112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 111(5), 745–765.  10.1037/pspp0000075 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48(8), 952–984. 10.1002/tea.20439 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology , 102(4), 880. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulleman, C. S., Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science , 326(5958), 1410–1412. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., Elrod, S. (2015). Implicit theories of change as a barrier to change on college campuses: An examination of STEM reform. Review of Higher Education , 38(4), 479–506.  10.1353/rhe.2015.0026 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, M., Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research: II. Communication Research , 20(3), 331–364.  10.1177/009365093020003001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitts, J. A. (2003). Egocentric bias or information management? Selective disclosure and the social roots of norm misperception. Social Psychology Quarterly , 66(3), 222–237.  10.2307/1519823 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiyama, J. M., Lee, J. J., Rhoades, G. (2012). A critical agency network model for building an integrated outreach program. Journal of Higher Education , 83(2), 276–303.  10.1353/jhe.2012.0009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lam, M. B. (2018, September 23). Diversity fatigue is real. Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved September 8, 2020, from www.chronicle.com/article/Diversity-Fatigue-Is-Real/244564 [ Google Scholar ]
• Latané, B., Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latimer, M., Jackson, K., Dilks, L., Nolan, J., Tower, L. (2014). Organizational change and gender equity in academia: Using dialogical change to promote positive departmental climates. In Demos, V., White Berheide, C., Texler Segal, M. (Eds.), Gender transformation in the academy (Vol. 19, pp. 333–353). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipscombe, T. A., Hendrick, A., Dzidic, P. L., Garvey, D. C., Bishop, B. (2021). Directions for research practice in decolonising methodo­logies: Contending with paradox. Methodological Innovations , 14(1), 20597991211006288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam, S. B., Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). The mediational effects of attributions and information processing in minority social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology , 35(1), 47–66. 10.1002/tea.20439 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2019, May 22). The condition of education 2019 . Retrieved June 1, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
• Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Livingston, J. A., Feeley, T. H. (2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence , 37(4), 391–400.  10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Gorman, H. J. (1975). Pluralistic ignorance and white estimates of white support for racial segregation. Public Opinion Quarterly , 39(3), 313–330.  10.1086/268231 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plaut, V. C., Romano, C. A., Hurd, K., Goldstein, E. (2020). Diversity resistance redux. In Thomas, K. (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (Second). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science , 20(4), 444–446. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richeson, J. A., Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40(3), 417–423.  10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In Reason, P., Rowan, J. (Eds.), Human Inquiry (pp. 93–112). New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, J. L., McPartlan, P., Poe, J., Thoman, D. B. (2021). Diversity fatigue: A survey for measuring attitudes towards diversity efforts in academia. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , Advanced online publication.  https://doi: 10.1037/cdp0000406 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, K. M., Plaut, V. C. (2008). The many faces of diversity resistance in the workplace. In Thomas, K. (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tibbetts, Y., Harackiewicz, J. M., Priniski, S. J., Canning, E. A. (2016). Broadening participation in the life sciences with social–psychological interventions. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15(3), es4.  10.1187/cbe.16-01-0001 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valantine, H. A., Collins, F. S. (2015). National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 112(40), 12240–12242.  10.1073/pnas.1515612112 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells, R. S., Stage, F. K. (2015). Past, present, and future of critical quantitative research in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research , 2014(163), 103–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin , 132(2), 249–268.  10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, T. D. (2006). The power of social psychological interventions. Science , 313(5791), 1251–1252.  10.1126/science.1133017 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence. Annual Review of Psychology , 51(1), 539–570.  10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (471.3 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

REVIEW article

How to promote diversity and inclusion in educational settings: behavior change, climate surveys, and effective pro-diversity initiatives.

• Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States

We review recent developments in the literature on diversity and inclusion in higher education settings. Diversity interventions increasingly focus on changing behaviors rather than mental constructs such as bias or attitudes. Additionally, there is now a greater emphasis on the evaluation of initiatives aimed at creating an inclusive climate. When trying to design an intervention to change behavior, it is advised to focus on a segment of the population (the “target audience”), to try to get people to adopt a small number of specific new behaviors (the “target behaviors”), and to address in the intervention the factors that affect the likelihood that members of the target audience will engage in the new target behaviors (the “barriers and benefits”). We report our recent work developing a climate survey that allows researchers and practitioners to identify these elements in a particular department or college. We then describe recent inclusion initiatives that have been shown to be effective in rigorous empirical studies. Taken together this paper shows that by implementing techniques based on research in the behavioral sciences it is possible to increase the sense of belonging, the success, and the graduation rate of minority students in STEM.

Introduction

Women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ + community, and members of other marginalized groups continue to be underrepresented in STEM fields ( National Science Foundation, 2020 ). Students from these groups are the target of both subtle and overt acts of discrimination, face negative stereotypes about their abilities, and experience disrespect and lack of inclusion by their instructors and peers ( Spencer and Castano, 2007 ; Wiggan, 2007 ; Cheryan et al., 2009 ). For example, students from marginalized groups are often assumed to be less intelligent and competent ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2014 ) and are often excluded when students form study groups or gather outside of class ( Slavin, 1990 ). Students from marginalized groups receive less challenging materials, worse feedback, and less time to respond to questions in class than their peers ( Beaman et al., 2006 ; Sadker et al., 2009 ). Additionally, the cultural mismatch between university norms and the cultural norms that students from marginalized groups were socialized in frequently leads to increased stress and negative emotions for these students ( Stephens et al., 2012 ).

Not surprisingly, students from marginalized groups are far more likely than high-status group members (e.g., White people, men) to report feeling as though they do not belong at universities ( Walton and Cohen, 2011 ). This is particularly problematic given that social belonging has been shown to be a key predictor of educational outcomes ( Dortch and Patel, 2017 ; Wolf et al., 2017 ; Murphy et al., 2020 ). Students who feel a greater sense of belonging are more likely to persist to graduation ( Strayhorn, 2012 ). Additionally, increased concerns about belonging can lead students to view common challenges—such as struggling to make friends or failing a test—as signs that they do not belong, promoting psychological disengagement and poorer educational outcomes ( Walton and Cohen, 2007 ). These challenges are exacerbated in STEM fields, which are typically dominated by members of high-status groups ( Rainey et al., 2018 ). Students from marginalized groups are particularly vulnerable to dropping out of STEM programs and the lack of a sense of community greatly contributes to this vulnerability ( O’Keefe, 2013 ).

It is clear then that the key to promoting academic success and retention of students from marginalized groups in STEM is creating an inclusive climate. In this article we will review recent developments within the diversity and inclusion literature about how to best promote inclusive behaviors and create an inclusive climate at colleges and universities. We will start out by describing recent shifts in the literature emphasizing the importance of changing behaviors rather than attitudes and the necessity to systematically evaluate diversity interventions. We will then review the key elements to designing effective interventions to promote diversity and inclusion. We will also talk about the use of focus groups and climate surveys to acquire the relevant background knowledge needed to design effective interventions. In the final section, we present recent initiatives that have successfully promoted diversity and inclusion in a variety of ways.

Recent Developments in Research on Diversity and Inclusion

A shift from reducing bias to promoting inclusive behavior.

Even though prejudice is communicated through behavior ( Carr et al., 2012 ), the traditional approach to prejudice reduction was to change explicit and implicit bias. The focus on bias was based on the assumption that changes in attitudes will subsequently lead to changes in behavior ( Dovidio et al., 2002 ). The universal acceptance of this assumption is surprising given the weak evidence for a link between attitudes and behavior. Explicit biases and attitudes more generally have been shown to predict behavior only weakly ( Wicker, 1969 ; Ajzen and Sheikh, 2013 ). Similarly, there is little to no connection between implicit bias and behavior ( Kurdi et al., 2019 ; Clayton et al., 2020 ). Implicit bias scores explain, at most, a very small proportion of the variability in intergroup behavior measured in lab settings, and this proportion is likely to be even smaller in more complex, real-world situations ( Oswald et al., 2013 ). Further, a change in implicit bias is not associated with a change in intergroup behavior. Lai et al. (2013) and Forscher et al. (2019) showed that while a variety of methods have been developed to change implicit bias, these methods produce trivial or nonexistent changes in intergroup behavior, and if they do, none of them last longer than 24 hours.

A growing body of research suggests that it is possible–and likely more effective–to focus on promoting inclusive behavior rather than improving individuals’ attitudes toward outgroup members. For example, Mousa (2020) randomly assigned Iraqi Christians displaced by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) either to an all-Christian soccer team or to a team mixed with Muslims. Christians with Muslim teammates were more likely to vote for a Muslim from another team to receive a sportsmanship award, register for a mixed faith team next season, and train with other Muslim soccer players six months after the intervention. However, attitudes toward Muslims more broadly did not change. Similarly, Scacco and Warren (2018) examined if sustained intergroup contact in an educational setting between Christian and Muslim men in Kaduna, Nigeria led to increased harmony and reduced discrimination between the two groups. After the intervention, there were no reported changes in prejudicial attitudes for either groups, but Christians and Muslims who had high levels of intergroup contact engaged in fewer discriminatory behaviors than peers who had low levels of intergroup contact. These findings demonstrate that while promoting both positive intergroup attitudes and inclusive behavior is ideal, it is necessary to target inclusive behaviors directly rather than trying to change people’s biased attitudes with the assumption that such change will translate into a subsequent behavior change.

Greater Emphasis on Evaluation

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, researchers and practitioners have developed a variety of initiatives to combat racial prejudice in the United States (for reviews see Murrar et al., 2017 ; Paluck and Green, 2009 ; Paluck et al., 2021 ). Although these initiatives have been tested in individual studies, primarily in the lab, many of them have not undergone the rigorous scientific testing that is required to be able to conclude that they are effective in real-world settings ( Paluck and Green, 2009 ). Further, the evaluation studies frequently examined only the effects on self-report attitudes and not behavioral outcomes, which is problematic for reasons outlined in the previous paragraphs. In light of this deficit, there has been a recent shift in this field of research which now emphasizes the need for systemic evaluation of the effectiveness of diversity initiatives in the field ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2014 ).

Recent work examining the effectiveness of diversity initiatives has found mixed evidence for the idea that existing strategies reduce discrimination, create more inclusive environments, or increase the representation of marginalized groups ( Noon, 2018 ; FitzGerald et al., 2019 ; Dover et al., 2020 ). Most diversity training or implicit bias training workshops have been shown to be ineffective ( Bezrukova et al., 2016 ; Chang et al., 2019 ). Some interventions meant to promote diversity and inclusion actually achieve the opposite effect ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2018 ). For example, Dobbin et al., (2007) found that diversity training workshops had little to no effect on improving workplace diversity and some actually led to a decline in the number of Black women in management positions at companies. Similarly, Kulik et al. (2007) found that employees often respond to mandatory diversity training with anger and resistance and some report increased animosity toward members of marginalized groups afterward.

Designing Successful Behavioral Interventions

Behavior change interventions tend to be more effective if they involve a systematic, focused approach which consists of identifying and targeting specific behaviors, catering the intervention to a particular audience, and incorporating in the intervention relevant information about factors that affect how members of the target audience appraise the target behavior ( Campbell and Brauer, 2020 ). Below, we have outlined several methodological and theoretical considerations for practitioners whose goal is to develop a behavioral intervention to promote diversity and inclusion (see Figure 1 ).

FIGURE 1 . Key elements to consider designing a behavior change intervention (adapted from Campbell and Brauer, 2020 ).

Selecting a Target Behavior

Once a broad issue has been identified (e.g., promoting diversity and inclusion at a university department), it must be distilled into a measurable, actionable goal ( Smith, 2006 ). For example, one might focus on an outcome such as reducing the racial achievement gap. It is critical that the desired outcome is quantifiable, as that will allow one to determine whether a behavioral intervention has been a success.

The next step is to identify and select a desired behavior to be adopted (i.e., the target behavior). The goal is to choose a target behavior that will lead to the desired outcome if people actually perform it ( Lee and Kotler, 2019 ). Continuing with the previous example, a behavioral intervention with the goal of reducing the racial achievement gap may target behaviors such as encouraging White students to include students of color in their study groups and social events or motivate instructors to highlight to a greater extent the contributions of female scientists. Sometimes it is possible to promote multiple similar target behaviors in the same intervention.

To identify potential target behaviors it is usually advised to conduct background research (see next section of this paper). This research may involve semi-structured interviews or focus groups with members of marginalized groups. Climate surveys with closed and open-ended questions can be equally informative. The goal of the background research is to determine the behaviors that affect members of marginalized groups the most. It is crucial to know what behaviors they find offensive and disrespectful and thereby decrease their sense of belonging, and what behaviors make them feel included, welcomed, and cared for. Examples of target behaviors to promote inclusion are attending diversity-outreach events or consciously forming diverse work groups.

Once a list of potential target behaviors has been established, it is advised to choose one of them for the intervention. The choice can be guided by evaluating each potential target behavior along a number of relevant dimensions ( McKenzie-Mohr, 2011 ). One may consider, for example, the extent to which the effect of changing from the old behavior to the new target behavior will have a large effect (“impact”), how likely people are to adopt the target behavior (“probability”), and how many people currently do not yet engage in the target behavior (“market opportunity”). For instance, an intervention seeking to reduce discriminatory behaviors toward members of the LGBTQ + community in STEM contexts might consider focusing on encouraging students to learn what terms hurt the feelings of queer people and then abstain from using them, get the students to avoid gendered language, or promote joining a queer-straight alliance at their university. While a large number students joining a queer-straight alliance would have a big effect on the sense of belonging of members of the LGBTQ + community (high impact), it is unlikely many students will adopt this behavior if they are not already predisposed to do so (low probability). Similarly, it may be easy to get students to switch to gender neutral language (high probability), but if most students are already using this language then promoting this behavior will lead to only minor improvements (low market opportunity).

Ultimately the goal is to choose a single behavior (or a small set of interrelated behaviors) that will make the biggest difference for members of marginalized groups and then design an intervention that specifically encourages the adoption of this behavior ( Wymer, 2011 ).

Selecting a Target Audience

One of the most vital considerations when designing a behavioral intervention is the selection of a specific target audience ( Kotler et al., 2001 ). Different segments of the population are receptive to different messages, possess different motivations, and have different reasons for engaging or not engaging in the desirable behavior ( Walsh et al., 2010 ). Although all individuals in a specific setting are usually exposed to a given pro-diversity initiative (e.g., everyone in a specific department or college), the initiative is more likely to be effective if it is designed with a specific subset of the population in mind ( French et al., 2010 ).

The first step in determining a target audience is to segment the population into various groups along either demographic criteria (e.g., Whites, men), occupation (e.g., students, teaching assistants, faculty, staff), or psychological dimensions (e.g., highly egalitarian individuals, individuals with racist attitudes, folks in the middle). The background research described in the next section will help practitioners identify the groups that have the most negative impact on the climate in a department or college. One can find out from members of marginalized groups, for example, which groups treat them in the most offensive way or which kind of people have the most negative impact on their sense of belonging.

Although multiple groups may emerge as potential target audiences, it is generally advised to choose only one as the focus of the intervention. Similar to the process of selecting a target behavior, the choice of the target audience can be guided by considering a number of relevant dimensions: How large is the segment, and what percentage of the members of this segment currently do not yet engage in the target behavior (“size”)? To what extent are members of this segment able, willing, and ready to change their behavior (“readiness”)? How easy it is to identify the members of this segment and are there known distribution channels for persuasive messages (“reachability”)? Teaching assistants may be a group that can easily be instructed to adopt certain behaviors (high reachability), individuals with hostile feelings toward certain social groups may not be willing to behave inclusively (low readiness), and academic advisors may be a group that is too small and that students from marginalized backgrounds interact with too infrequently to be chosen as the target audience (small size).

Most effective behavior change interventions are designed with a single target audience in mind. That is, the communications and campaign materials are designed so that they are appealing and persuasive for the members of the chosen target audience. The objective should thus be to choose a single target audience that can be persuaded to adopt the target behavior and has a big impact on how included members of marginalized groups feel in the department or college.

Barriers and Benefits

It is critical to consider the factors that influence the likelihood that members of the target audience will engage in the desired target behavior, the so-called “barriers” and “benefits” ( Lefebvre, 2011 ). Barriers refer to anything that prevents an individual from engaging in a given behavior. Benefits are the positive outcomes an individual anticipates receiving as a result of engaging in the behavior. The ultimate goal is to design an intervention that makes salient the target audience’s perceived benefits of the new, desired target behavior and the perceived barriers toward engaging in the current, undesired behavior ( McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz, 2014 ).

Practitioners likely want to conduct background research to learn about the target audience’s motivations to engage in various behaviors. This can again be done with interviews, focus groups, or climate surveys, but this time the responses of members of the target audience, rather than the responses of members of marginalized groups, are most relevant. One should find out why members of the target audience currently do not perform the target behavior. Are there any logistic barriers (e.g., lack of opportunity) or psychological barriers (i.e., discomfort experienced around certain groups)? Are there any incorrect beliefs that underly the current behavior? The background research should also identify the positive consequences members of the target audience value and expect to experience when performing the target behavior. These consequences can then be highlighted in the intervention.

Both barriers and benefits can be abstract or concrete, internal or external, and real or perceived. For example, if an intervention seeks to encourage students from different backgrounds to be friendly to one another in the classroom members of the target audience may be apprehensive when interacting with outgroup members due to fear of saying something offensive (a barrier) but would interact more frequently with outgroup members if they believed that it would provide them an opportunity to make new friends (benefits). A well-designed behavioral intervention would then use this information to craft persuasive messages that directly address the target audience’s barriers and benefits. In this specific example, the intervention might involve providing people with tools to avoid offensive language and emphasize the potential to make new friends.

Elements That Increase the Persistence of a Behavioral Change

Sometimes people adopt a new behavior but then switch back to the old, undesired behavior after a few days or weeks. What can be done to increase the persistence of behavior change? One strategy that has proven to be particularly effective is to change the assumptions that people make about themselves and their environments ( Frey and Rogers, 2014 ; Walton and Wilson, 2018 ). For example, believing that one is not culturally competent will lead to interpreting difficult interactions with outgroup members as proof of this assumption. The more entrenched these beliefs become, the more difficult behaviors are to change. However, the human tendency to “make meaning” of oneself and one’s social situations can be harnessed for positive behavioral change. By altering the assumptions that lead to undesirable behaviors, it is possible to set in motion recursive cycles where a person’s new behavior leads to positive reactions in the environment, which in turn reinforces the self-representation that they are “the kind of person” who cares about this issue (e.g., diversity) and engages in these behaviors (e.g., inclusive behaviors). Consider an example from a different domain: Fostering a growth mindset where students start to believe they can improve through practice will change how they interpret successes and failures, thereby disrupting the negative feedback cycle that leads to poorer performance in school (see Yeager et al., 2019 ).

In addition, interventions that foster habit formation are more likely to increase the persistence of new behaviors ( Wood and Rünger, 2016 ). Interventions can promote habit formation by increasing the perceived difficulty of performing an undesirable behavior or by decreasing the perceived difficulty of doing the new target behavior. People will most often engage in behaviors that they perceive as being easy to do, regardless of whether or not the difference in difficulty is minimal. Additionally, providing easy to understand, recurring cues that encourage desirable behaviors and disrupt old, undesirable behaviors can help facilitate habit formation.

How to Conduct Relevant Background Research

There are a variety of ways how members of higher education institutions can identify the diversity-related issues that should be addressed in their department or college. The most frequently used methods are focus groups and climate surveys. We will discuss each of these methods below.

Focus groups are effective because a group member’s comment may cause other members to remember issues that they would not have thought of otherwise. It is easy to recruit students from marginalized groups by appealing to their departmental citizenship or by promising attractive prizes (e.g., two $100 gift certificates that will be given out to two randomly selected members of the focus group). It is generally advised to form groups of individuals sharing some social identity (i.e., African Americans, Latinxs, women in technical fields). Most individuals feel more comfortable voicing their concerns if the focus group facilitator also shares their social identity. Many universities have skilled focus group facilitators, but if necessary, it is possible to train research assistants by directing them to appropriate resources ( Krueger, 1994 ; https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/04/Tipsheet5.pdf ).

Focus group members should be encouraged to talk about the situations in which they felt excluded, disrespected, or discriminated against. For example, focus group members might be asked questions such as “What exactly did the other person do or say? Where did the situation occur (in the classroom, during office hours)? Who was the other person (peer, instructor, staff)?” Focus group members should then be asked about the situations in which they felt included, respected, and cared for. Again, the goal should be to obtain precise information about the exact nature of the behaviors, the place in which they occurred, and person who engaged in the behaviors. It is useful to ask about the relative impact of these negative and positive behaviors. For example, one might ask “If you could eliminate one behavior here in this department which one would it be?” and “Among all the inclusive and respectful behaviors you just mentioned which one would increase your sense of belonging the most?”.

To assess the barriers and benefits of the potential target behaviors it can be useful to conduct focus groups with individuals who a priori do not come from any of the marginalized groups mentioned above. The facilitator can describe the negative behaviors (without labeling them as discriminatory) and ask whether the focus group members sometimes engage in them and if they do, why. One might ask about potential pathways to eliminate these undesired behaviors, e.g., “What would have to be different for you–or your peers–to no longer behave like that?”. The next step is to have a similar discussion about the positive target behavior: What prevents focus group members currently from engaging in this behavior? What could someone say or show to them so that they would engage in this behavior? If some members of the focus groups have recently started to do the positive behavior, what got them to change in the first place?

Focus groups are also useful to determine how able, willing, and ready to change their behavior members of different potential target audiences are. Several factors contribute to individuals’ “readiness” to change their behavior. These factors include openness to acting more inclusively ( Brauer et al., in press ), internal motivation to respond without prejudice ( Plant and Devine, 1998 ), lack of discomfort interacting with members of different social groups ( Stephan, 2014 ), and general enthusiasm for diversity ( Pittinsky et al., 2011 ). Facilitators can get at these factors by asking the members of the focus group about their motivation and perceived ability to engage in the target behavior.

Climate surveys are effective because they usually provide data from a larger and thus more representative sample in a given department or college. Various techniques exist to increase the response rate of respondents (e.g., Dykema et al., 2013 ). The exact content and length of a climate survey depend on the participant population and the frequency with which the survey is administered. The online supplemental material contains two examples developed by the Wisconsin Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (WiscAMP), one for graduate students of a university department and one for all undergraduate students on a campus. Other climate surveys used in higher education and numerous relevant references can be downloaded from this web address: http://psych.wisc.edu/Brauer/BrauerLab/index.php/campaign-materials/information-resources/

All climate surveys should measure demographic information, but in smaller units, anonymity may be an issue. Once gender identity is crossed with racial/ethnic identity and occupation (e.g., postdoc vs. assistant professor vs. full professor) it may no longer be possible to protect all respondents’ anonymity. The solution is to form a small number of relatively large categories such that it is unlikely that there will be fewer than five respondents when all these categories are crossed with each other. If the analyses reveal that certain groups of respondents are too small, then the presentation of the results should be adjusted. For example, the means can be broken down once by gender identity and once by race/ethnicity, but not by gender identity and race/ethnicity.

To address the anonymity issue, we recently conducted a climate survey in which we only asked two demographic questions: “Do you identify as a man, yes or no?” and “Do you identify as a member of a marginalized group (unrelated to gender identity), yes or no?” We justified the use of these questions in the survey by explaining that the gender identity question was asked in this way because research shows that individuals who identify as men are less often the target of sexual assault than those who do not identify as men. We also provided a brief definition of “marginalized groups.”

Climate surveys have two goals. They should provide an accurate reading of respondents’ perception of the social climate and they should suggest concrete action steps about initiatives to be implemented (see Table 1 for a list of constructs that are frequently measured in climate surveys). To achieve the first goal the climate survey should contain at least one question about the overall climate and several questions about specific feelings related to the social climate. In addition, the survey should assess sense of belonging, as well as mental and physical health. Most climate surveys also include items about respondents’ experiences of discrimination and their intention to remain in the institution (sometimes referred to as “persistence”). Finally, the climate survey may assess a variety of other constructs such as respondents’ perception of the institution’s commitment to diversity, their personal values related to diversity, their level of discomfort being around people from other social groups (sometimes referred to as “intergroup anxiety”) and self-reported inclusive behaviors.

TABLE 1 . List of constructs that are frequently measured in climate surveys.

To achieve the second goal–identification of concrete action steps about initiatives to be implemented–the climate survey needs to contain questions that help identify potential target behaviors, potential target audiences, and the barriers and benefits. It is helpful to ask respondents about the groups of individuals that have the most negative impact on their experience in the Department. It is further important to get information about the behaviors that should be discouraged (behaviors that negatively affect the well-being of individuals belonging to marginalized groups) and behaviors that should be promoted in the future (behaviors that make members of marginalized groups feel welcome and included). Once these behaviors have been identified, which will likely be the case after the climate survey has been implemented once or twice in a given Department, it is even possible to include items that measure the barriers and benefits for these behaviors.

As will be described in the next section, one of the most effective ways to promote an inclusive climate is to make salient that inclusion is a social norm. People’s perceptions of social norms are determined in part by what their peers think and do, and it is thus important for a climate survey to assess how common inclusive beliefs and behaviors are (the so-called “descriptive norms”). The above-mentioned items measuring personal values related to diversity partially achieve this purpose. In addition, consider including in the climate survey items that measure respondents’ support for their department’s pro-diversity initiatives, their enjoyment of diversity, their self-reported inclusive behaviors, and their perceptions of the proportion of peers who behave in an inclusive, non-discriminatory way. The survey shown in the online Supplemental Material contains additional items that assess respondent’s perceptions of the extent to which it is “descriptively normative” to be inclusive. It can be highly effective to create persuasive messages in which the average response to these items is reported. For example, if respondents from marginalized groups answered that a numerical majority of their peers engage in inclusive behaviors and abstain from engaging in discriminatory behaviors, then obviously inclusion is a social norm. As will be explained in more detail in the next section, such “social norms messages” have been shown to promote the occurrence of inclusive behaviors and to promote a welcoming social climate, as long as is it acknowledged that acts of bigotry and exclusion still occur and it is communicated that the department or college will continue its diversity efforts until members of marginalized groups feel just as welcome and included as members of nonmarginalized groups.

Overview of Recently Developed Initiatives to Promote Inclusion

A few new approaches to promoting inclusion stand out among the rest. Rather than taking a traditional approach of reducing biased attitudes or raising awareness about persistent prejudice, many of these new initiatives focus on changing behavior. We will discuss in detail two types of interventions, one involving social norms messaging and the other promoting intergroup contact. We will also briefly describe the “pride and prejudice” approach to inclusion in academia. While only some of these initiatives have been specifically tested as ways to improve inclusion in STEM settings, all of them can easily be applied in these settings as they show promise for increasing inclusion in academic contexts.

Social Norms Messaging

Social norms influence behavior in a way that is consistent with desirable normative behavior ( McDonald and Crandall, 2015 ). Social norms messaging–persuasive messages about social norms–has recently emerged as a promising method for promoting inclusion ( Murrar et al., 2020 ). There are two main types of social norms, descriptive (i.e., what behaviors are common among a group of people) and injunctive (i.e., what is approved of among a group of people; Cialdini et al., 1990 ). Interventions that utilize messages about descriptive social norms have been used for many years and have been proven successful in a variety of areas (e.g., energy conservation, binge drinking among college students; Frey and Rogers, 2014 ; Lewis and Neighbors, 2006 ; Miller and Prentice, 2016 ). Such interventions influence behavior by changing or correcting individuals’ perceptions of their peers’ behavior, which is particularly powerful because people rely on each other and their environment for guidance on how to behave ( Rhodes et al., 2020 ).

Prejudice is often blamed on conformity to social norms ( Crandall et al., 2002 ). However, researchers have started to employ social norms messaging as a way to improve intergroup outcomes. For example, Murrar and colleagues (2020) developed two interventions that targeted peoples’ perceptions of their peers’ pro-diversity attitudes and inclusive behaviors (i.e., descriptive norms) and tested them within college classrooms. One intervention involved placing posters inside classrooms that communicated that most students at the university embrace diversity and welcome people from all backgrounds into the campus community. The other intervention consisted of a short video that portrayed interviews with students who expressed pro-diversity attitudes and intentions to behave inclusively. The video also showed interviews with diversity and inclusion experts who reported that the blatant acts of discrimination, which undoubtedly occur on campus and affect the well-being of students from marginalized groups, are perpetrated by a numerical minority of students. The interventions led to an increase in inclusive behaviors in all students, an enhanced sense of belonging among students from marginalized groups, and a reduction in the achievement gap (see Figure 2 ). Note that Murrar and colleagues’ Experiment 6 specifically examined the effectiveness of the intervention in STEM courses.

FIGURE 2 . Effect of condition on outcomes of interest for students from marginalized groups in experiment 5 of Murrar et al., 2020 . Note: The authors compared their social norms intervention to a no-exposure control group and an intervention highlighting bias.

Another intervention strategy that successfully utilized social norms messaging and improved the well-being of college students from marginalized groups was developed and tested by Brauer et al. (in press) . Using the steps to designing successful behavior interventions described earlier, these authors identified the target behavior (inclusive classroom behavior), target audience (White university students), barriers (perceptions of peer inclusive behaviors and lack of motivation to behave inclusively) and benefits (importance of working and communicating well with a diverse group of people for others and oneself) to design a theoretically informed intervention strategy: a one-page document to be included in course syllabi. The document included not only social norms messaging about students’ inclusive behaviors (descriptive norms), but also statements by the university leadership endorsing diversity (highlighting injunctive norms, Rhodes et al., 2020 ), a short text about the benefits of learning to behave inclusively (inspired by utility value interventions; Harackiewicz et al., 2016 ) and concrete behavioral recommendations (inspired by SMART goals; Wade, 2009 ). This approach of applying multiple theories in an intervention creates “theoretical synergy,” which refers to the situation where the elements of a multifaceted intervention mutually reinforce each other and thus become particularly effective ( Paluck et al., 2021 ).

Posters, videos, and syllabi documents are just a few ways through which social norms messaging can be implemented in classrooms to promote inclusive behaviors and improve the classroom climate for students belonging to marginalized groups. Social norms messaging can also be considered a cheap, easy, and flexible way for instructors to shape students’ norm perceptions of a classroom early on and establish expectations for inclusive behavior. When inclusive norms are established early, students are more likely to abide by them.

Intergroup Contact

The intergroup contact hypothesis, first proposed by Allport (1954) , has been the basis for many prejudice reduction strategies. The theory suggests that contact between members of different groups can cause prejudice reduction if there is equal status between the groups and they are in pursuit of common goals. Intergroup contact has rarely been tested as a means to promote inclusion in STEM settings, but some recent experiments involving interventions that utilize intergroup contact have shown promise in their ability to promote inclusion and reduce the occurrence of discriminatory behavior.

Described earlier in this paper, Mousa (2020) , Scacco and Warren (2018) are examples for how intergroup contact can promote inclusion in academic and non-academic settings. Similarly, Lowe (2021) randomly assigned men from different castes in India to be cricket teammates and compete against other teams. Lowe examined one to three weeks after the end of the cricket league whether intergroup contact experienced through being on a mixed-caste sports team and having opponents from different castes would affect willingness to interact with people from other castes, ingroup favoritism, and efficiency and trust in trading goods that had monetary value. Whereas collaborative contact improved the three outcomes, adversarial contact (i.e., contact through being opponents to different caste members) resulted in the opposite effects.

Lowe (2021) , Mousa (2020) , Scacco and Warren (2018) intergroup contact interventions show the importance of providing long-term intergroup interactions when trying to reduce discriminatory behavior and promote inclusive behavior. In particular, if the interactions involve being on the same teams and sharing common goals, engagement in inclusive behaviors and decision-making will be a likely outcome. Note that none of these interventions altered people’s attitudes. Attitude change is not a precondition for behavior change to occur. Classroom instructors in STEM can leverage insights from the research on intergroup contact by incorporating numerous opportunities for intergroup interaction in the classroom as well as in assignments and projects throughout the course. One easy way to achieve this goal is to form project groups randomly rather than allowing students to form groups themselves.

Pride and Prejudice

A new strategy for promoting inclusion in academia is the “Pride and Prejudice” approach, which has been created to address the complexity of marginalized identities ( Brannon and Lin, 2020 ). “Pride” refers to the acknowledgment of the history and culture of students from marginalized groups (e.g., classes, groups, and spaces dedicated to marginalized groups), whereas “prejudice” refers to initiatives that address the discrimination experienced by students from these groups. The key idea of this approach is that identity is a source for both pride and prejudice for those belonging to marginalized groups. Both supporting marginalized groups and addressing instances of prejudice are pathways to inclusion in academic settings.

Support for the “Pride and Prejudice” approach comes from Brannon and Lin (2020) analysis of demands made by students from 80 United States colleges and universities compiled in 2016 (see thedemands.org ) following a series of racial discrimination protests regarding what changes they wanted to see on their campuses ( Hartocollis and Bidgood, 2015 ). Their analysis revealed that most demands referenced pride experiences and prejudice experiences. Brannon and Lin also analyzed longitudinal data to assess for pride and prejudice experiences among college students in 27 colleges and universities and the relationships of these experiences with several intergroup outcomes. The results showed that pride and prejudice experiences impact students’ sense of belonging via ingroup and outgroup closeness. The findings suggest that to promote inclusion in academia, it may be best to create settings that support and celebrate the cultures of marginalized groups in addition to having practices in place to mitigate prejudice and discrimination toward marginalized groups.

A variety of strategies have been developed to reduce the achievement gap (e.g., self-affirmation interventions, promoting growth-mindsets, etc…). However, many of these strategies are meant to help students from marginalized students succeed in an environment that is not inclusive. Instead of placing the burden on students from marginalized groups (i.e., teaching them how to deal with the exclusion and discrimination), researchers and practitioners should shift their focus to creating inclusive academic environments. The research discussed in this article provides a framework for developing successful interventions to promote diversity and inclusion. Such an approach may hold the key to improving the experiences of individuals from marginalized groups by targeting the behaviors that can make them feel more recognized, respected, welcomed, and valued. In the long run this will be the most effective way to raise the success and graduation of students from marginalized groups in STEM.

Author Contributions

GM, NI, and MB participated in the writing and revision of the paper. MB approved the paper for submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.668250/full#supplementary-material

Ajzen, I., and Sheikh, S. (2013). Action versus Inaction: Anticipated Affect in the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43 (1), 155–162. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00989.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., and Kemp, C. (2006). Differential Teacher Attention to Boys and Girls in the Classroom. Educ. Rev. 58, 339–366. doi:10.1080/00131910600748406

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., and Jehn, K. A. (2016). A Meta-Analytical Integration of over 40 Years of Research on Diversity Training Evaluation. Psychol. Bull. 142 (11), 1227–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000067

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brannon, T. N., and Lin, A. (2020). “Pride and Prejudice” Pathways to Belonging: Implications for Inclusive Diversity Practices within Mainstream Institutions. Am. Psychol. 76, 488–501. doi:10.1037/amp0000643

Brauer, M., Dumesnil, A., and Campbell, M. R. (in press). Using a Social Marketing Approach to Develop a Pro-diversity Intervention. J. Soc. Marketing.

Google Scholar

Campbell, M. R., and Brauer, M. (2020). Incorporating Social-Marketing Insights into Prejudice Research: Advancing Theory and Demonstrating Real-World Applications. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 608–629. doi:10.1177/1745691619896622

Carr, P. B., Dweck, C. S., and Pauker, K. (2012). “Prejudiced” Behavior without Prejudice? Beliefs about the Malleability of Prejudice Affect Interracial Interactions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 103 (3), 452–471. doi:10.1037/a0028849

Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L., et al. (2019). The Mixed Effects of Online Diversity Training. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 116 (16), 7778–7783. doi:10.1073/pnas.1816076116

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., and Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97 (6), 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

Clayton, K., Horrillo, J., and Sniderman, P. M. (2020). The Validity of the IAT and the AMP as Measures of Racial Prejudice. Available at SSRN . doi:10.2139/ssrn.3744338

Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., and O'Brien, L. (2002). Social Norms and the Expression and Suppression of Prejudice: The Struggle for Internalization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82, 359–378. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359

Dobbin, F., Kalev, A., and Kelly, E. (2007). Diversity Management in Corporate America. Contexts . 6 (4), 21–27. doi:10.1525/ctx.2007.6.4.21

Dobbin, F., and Kalev, A. (2018). Why Doesn't Diversity Training Work? the Challenge for Industry and Academia. Anthropol. Now . 10 (2), 48–55. doi:10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182

Dortch, D., and Patel, C. (2017). Black Undergraduate Women and Their Sense of Belonging in STEM at Predominantly White Institutions. NASPA J. About Women Higher Education . 10 (2), 202–215. doi:10.1080/19407882.2017.1331854

Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., and Major, B. (2020). Mixed Signals: The Unintended Effects of Diversity Initiatives. Soc. Issues Pol. Rev. 14 (1), 152–181. doi:10.1111/sipr.12059

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., and Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82 (1), 62–68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62

Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Klein, L., Kim, Y., and Day, B. (2013). Effects of E-Mailed versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs in a Web Survey of university Faculty. Soc. Sci. Computer Rev. 31 (3), 359–370. doi:10.1177/0894439312465254

FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., and Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions Designed to Reduce Implicit Prejudices and Implicit Stereotypes in Real World Contexts: A Systematic Review. BMC Psychol. 7 (1), 1–12. doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0299-7

Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., et al. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 117 (3), 522–559. doi:10.1037/pspa0000160

French, J., Blair-Stevens, C., McVey, D., and Merritt, R. (2010). Social Marketing and Public Health: Theory and Practice . Oxford University Press

Frey, E., and Rogers, T. (2014). Persistence. Pol. Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 1 (1), 172–179. doi:10.1177/2372732214550405

Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., and Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing Achievement Gaps with a Utility-Value Intervention: Disentangling Race and Social Class. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 111 (5), 745–765. doi:10.1037/pspp0000075

Hartocollis, A., and Bidgood, J. (2015). Racial Discrimination Demonstrations Spread at Universities across the U.S. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/racial-discrimination-protests-ignite-at-colleges-across-the-us.html .

Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. (2001). Principles of Marketing . 9th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Krueger, R. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kulik, C. T., Pepper, M. B., Roberson, L., and Parker, S. K. (2007). The Rich Get Richer: Predicting Participation in Voluntary Diversity Training. J. Organiz. Behav. 28 (6), 753–769. doi:10.1002/job.444

Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., et al. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and Intergroup Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Am. Psychol. 74 (5), 569–586. doi:10.1037/amp0000364

Lai, C. K., Hoffman, K. M., and Nosek, B. A. (2013). Reducing Implicit Prejudice. Social Personal. Psychol. Compass . 7 (5), 315–330. doi:10.1111/spc3.12023

Lee, N. R., and Kotler, P. (2019). Social Marketing: Changing Behaviors for Good . Sage Publications .

Lefebvre, R. C. (2011). An Integrative Model for Social Marketing. J. Soc. Marketing . 1 (1), 54–72. doi:10.1108/20426761111104437

Lewis, M. A., and Neighbors, C. (2006). Social Norms Approaches Using Descriptive Drinking Norms Education: A Review of the Research on Personalized Normative Feedback. J. Am. Coll. Health . 54, 213–218. doi:10.3200/jach.54.4.213-218

Lowe, M. (2021). Types of Contact: A Field experiment on Collaborative and Adversarial Caste Integration. Am. Econ. Rev. 111 (6), 1807–1844. doi:10.1287/e8861e18-1b80-4134-918b-824c477abe4f

McDonald, R. I., and Crandall, C. S. (2015). Social Norms and Social Influence. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 147–151. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.006

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing . New society publishers .

McKenzie-Mohr, D., and Schultz, P. W. (2014). Choosing Effective Behavior Change Tools. Soc. Marketing Q. 20 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1177/1524500413519257

Miller, D. T., and Prentice, D. A. (2016). Changing Norms to Change Behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 339–361. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015013

Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., and Handelsman, J. (2014). Scientific Diversity Interventions. Science . 343 (6171), 615–616. doi:10.1126/science.1245936

Mousa, S. (2020). Building Social Cohesion between Christians and Muslims through Soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science . 369 (6505), 866–870. doi:10.1126/science.abb3153

Murphy, M. C., Gopalan, M., Carter, E. R., Emerson, K. T., Bottoms, B. L., and Walton, G. M. (2020). A Customized Belonging Intervention Improves Retention of Socially Disadvantaged Students at a Broad-Access university. Sci. Adv. 6 (29), eaba4677. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba4677

Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., and Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to Peers' Pro-diversity Attitudes Increases Inclusion and Reduces the Achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 (9), 889–897. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5

Murrar, S., Gavac, S., and Brauer, M. (2017). Reducing Prejudice. Social Psychol. How other People influence our thoughts actions , 361–384.

National Science Foundation (2020). The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2020. Retreived from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201 .

Noon, M. (2018). Pointless Diversity Training: Unconscious Bias, New Racism and agency. Work, Employment Soc. 32 (1), 198–209. doi:10.1177/0950017017719841

O'Keeffe, P. (2013). A Sense of Belonging: Improving Student Retention. Coll. Student J. 47 (4), 605–613.

Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., and Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: a Meta-Analysis of IAT Criterion Studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105 (2), 171–192. doi:10.1037/a0032734

Paluck, E. L., and Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., and Green, D. P. (2021). Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

Pittinsky, T. L., Rosenthal, S. A., and Montoya, R. M. (2011). “Measuring Positive Attitudes toward Outgroups: Development and Validation of the Allophilia Scale,” in Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations. . Editors L. R. Tropp, and R. K. Mallett American Psychological Association , 41–60. doi:10.1037/12319-002

Plant, E. A., and Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and External Motivation to Respond without Prejudice. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75 (3), 811–832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811

Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., and Moller, S. (2018). Race and Gender Differences in How Sense of Belonging Influences Decisions to Major in STEM. Int. J. STEM Education . 5 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6

Rhodes, N., Shulman, H. C., and McClaran, N. (2020). Changing Norms: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Research on Social Norms Appeals. Hum. Commun. Res. 46, 161–191. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz023

Sadker, D., Sadker, M., and Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still Failing at Fairness: How Gender Bias Cheats Girls and Boys and what We Can Do about it . Revised edition. New York: Charles Scribner.

Scacco, A., and Warren, S. S. (2018). Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field experiment in Nigeria. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 112 (3), 654–677. doi:10.1017/s0003055418000151

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy. Educ. Leadersh. 47 (4), 52–54.

Smith, W. A. (2006). Social Marketing: an Overview of Approach and Effects. Inj. Prev. 12 (Suppl. 1), i38–i43. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.012864

Spencer, B., and Castano, E. (2007). Social Class Is Dead. Long Live Social Class! Stereotype Threat Among Low Socioeconomic Status Individuals. Soc. Just Res. 20 (4), 418–432. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0047-7

Stephan, W. G. (2014). Intergroup Anxiety. Pers Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18 (3), 239–255. doi:10.1177/1088868314530518

Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., and Phillips, L. T. (2012). A Cultural Mismatch: Independent Cultural Norms Produce Greater Increases in Cortisol and More Negative Emotions Among First-Generation College Students. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 (6), 1389–1393. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.008

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational success for All Students . Routledge . doi:10.4324/9780203118924

CrossRef Full Text

Wade, D. T. (2009). Goal Setting in Rehabilitation: An Overview of what, Why and How. Clin. Rehabil. 23, 291–295. doi:10.1177/0269215509103551

Walsh, G., Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., Andrews, J. C., and Hastings, G. (2010). Segmentation in Social Marketing. Eur. J. Marketing 44 (7), 1140–1164. doi:10.1108/03090561011047562

Walton, G. M., and Cohen, G. L. (2011). A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students. Science . 331 (6023), 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364

Walton, G. M., and Cohen, G. L. (2007). A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92 (1), 82–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Walton, G. M., and Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise Interventions: Psychological Remedies for Social and Personal Problems. Psychol. Rev. 125 (5), 617–655. doi:10.1037/rev0000115

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. J. Soc. Issues 25 (4), 41–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x

Wiggan, G. (2007). Race, School Achievement, and Educational Inequality: Toward a Student-Based Inquiry Perspective. Rev. Educ. Res. 77 (3), 310–333. doi:10.3102/003465430303947

Wolf, D. A. P. S., Perkins, J., Butler-Barnes, S. T., and Walker, T. A. (2017). Social Belonging and College Retention: Results from a Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study. J. Coll. Student Development . 58 (5), 777–782. doi:10.1353/csd.2017.0060

Wood, W., and Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of Habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 289–314. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417

Wymer, W. (2011). Developing More Effective Social Marketing Strategies. J. Soc. Marketing . 1 (1), 17–31. doi:10.1108/20426761111104400

Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., et al. (2019). A National experiment Reveals where a Growth Mindset Improves Achievement. Nature . 573 (7774), 364–369. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y

Keywords: higher educaction, STEM–science technology engineering mathematics, diversity, inclusion, behavior change, intervention

Citation: Moreu G, Isenberg N and Brauer M (2021) How to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in Educational Settings: Behavior Change, Climate Surveys, and Effective Pro-Diversity Initiatives. Front. Educ. 6:668250. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.668250

Received: 15 February 2021; Accepted: 23 June 2021; Published: 08 July 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Moreu, Isenberg and Brauer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Markus Brauer, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.