Science Identity Development in Students of Color: Friends, Family Networks, and Scholarship

• In Event: Advancing Science Identity Development in Diverse Students at the Intersection of Multiple Constructs and Contexts

Abstract

Research on science identity suggests that multiple variables contribute to the development of a robust science identity (Flowers & Banda, 2016; Kim, Sinatra, & Seyranian, 2018; Syed, Azmitia & Cooper, 2011). This study uses qualitative metasynthesis to explore science identity development in Students of Color (SoC). Qualitative metasynthesis integrates key learnings of qualitative studies that may not be apparent from an individual qualitative research perspective or solely from a quantitative perspective. The research question is as follows: What are the academic and non-academic support factors that contribute to science identity development in secondary and postsecondary SoC?

Social identity theory and science identity theory inform the theoretical framework. Social identity theory highlights the importance of social context, the value of group membership, and recognition by others and self in shaping identity (Berger, 1966; Gee, 2001; Tajfel, 1974). Science identity is characterized as a type of social identity which comprises group membership and affiliation with those who engage in science study, practice, or work (Brickhouse, 2001). Carlone and Johnson (2007) consider the complexity of science identity development in female SoC by incorporating three dimensions into their model: Competence, Recognition and Performance. The authors utilize a broad definition of science identity that includes life, physical, and social sciences (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). The framework and the model aptly address variables previously identified in qualitative studies exploring science identity in SoC.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify qualitative studies that address science identity in racially and ethnically diverse secondary students (e.g., Black, Hispanic, Native American). Inclusion criteria consisted of peer reviewed studies published from 2000-2020. This process yielded 14 studies which were assessed for quality drawing on established criteria for credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004).

The analysis incorporated an inductive approach to coding which reveals relationships between concepts and identifies gaps in the findings across multiple studies (Charmaz, 2006; Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). The findings from the 14 qualitative studies were grouped according to similarity in topics to allow for the emergence of broad overarching concepts. The resulting major concepts, Science Identity Negotiation and Emergence, encapsulate the study components that support or hinder students’ progress in science identity development. The major concepts were further divided into secondary themes. The analysis resulted in six themes that support science identity development and six opposing themes that hinder science identity development. This paper focuses on the six supporting themes: belonging, persistence, confidence, congruence, access to social capital, and access to cultural capital.

The results suggest the science identities of racially and ethnically diverse students are shaped by multiple and often opposing factors when engaging is science activities. Social capital, in the form of family and peer networks, has a prominent role in mediating identity negotiation while also supporting emerging science identities. The ability to demonstrate knowledge of science, engage in science practices, coupled with acknowledgement by self and peers as a science person, help to validate science identity in SoC (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). More research is needed to explore science identity negotiation.

Authors

• Sylvia Margaret Butterfield, National Science Foundation

• Karen Benn Marshall, Oakwood University