7
Diverse Work Teams: Understanding the Challenges and How STEMM Professionals Can Leverage the Strengths
In the previous two chapters, we examined individual and interpersonal racism from two distinct perspectives, namely the minoritized individual and the gatekeeper. This chapter examines situations where these individuals are brought together, in a team. The way that much science is done today relies on individual scientists training or working together in this way, and in light of teamwork’s central role in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM), the committee here explores the dynamics of numerically diverse teams, describes the challenges that can arise within them, and discusses how STEMM professionals can leverage the potential strengths of diverse teams.
The chapter begins by defining teams as a small number of individuals with different roles and responsibilities who interact independently to perform tasks and accomplish shared goals. The research shows that teams are part and parcel of STEMM in educational and professional settings. As recent calls to increase “team science” continue, many STEMM organizations and professionals may be motivated to improve the conditions of effective diverse teams.
After, the chapter examines the research on how racial and ethnic diversity in teams impacts team performance. A common narrative is that diverse teams perform better. As the research shows, the evidence around the impact of team diversity on team performance is not straightforward, and in some cases even contradictory. This is driven, in part, by a key finding demonstrating that numeric diversity alone is necessary but insufficient to help produce positive team performance. Numerous challenges can threaten performance, including anxiety about working with people from other race and ethnicity groups and prevalent mistreatment targeting minoritized individuals.
The chapter then reviews literature finding that under ideal conditions, diverse teams can be leveraged to produce positive performance outcomes. Some conditions include promoting inclusion and a positive team climate and working under conditions of psychological safety. Further, a body of research finds that attending to teamwork contexts may also help facilitate prejudice reduction among individuals. We end by concluding that STEMM professionals who want to help advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) need to take an active approach to diverse team management. To leverage the potential strengths of diverse teams, several ideal conditions should be actively fostered, and careful and conscious management of diverse teams is needed. These are specified.
TEAMS WITHIN STEMM
STEMM culture has historically been characterized by and centered on individualism and competition with others (Gilliam et al., 2017; Morton et al., 2019). In academia, in particular, reward structures, including grades and promotions, are all allocated at the individual level. Yet the way most science is done today in practice relies on individual scientists training or working together in teams of varying sizes. In addition, in recent years there have been calls to increase “team science,” or the formation of collaborative groups with experts from various disciplines leveraging their strengths to solve increasingly complex problems of social and scientific importance (National Research Council, 2015). Innovative curricula have also been developed for introductory courses that center teamwork and innovation (Full et al., 2021; Handelsman et al., 2022), which have been linked to increased retention of minoritized students (Handelsman et al., 2022). Thus, improving the conditions of diverse teams to yield effective teamwork is often a priority for STEMM training, organizations today, and nations as they tackle the problems of tomorrow (Phillips et al., 2014).
A team is defined as a small number of individuals with different roles and responsibilities that interact together and interdependently to perform tasks and accomplish goals that are shared (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; National Research Council, 2015). In STEMM, teams are typically made up of two to ten individuals (National Research Council, 2015), and this is also the scale of most of the research on teams presented in this chapter. In STEMM, teams may take several forms. These may include working together in laboratory spaces, mentorship, online or asynchronous collaborative work, and other work models (Robotham et al., 2021). As individuals continue to come together to form teams, they bring with them not only their individual differences in knowledge and education (Shemla and Wegge, 2019), but also their entire selves, including their individual racial and ethnic identities (Osseo-Asare et al., 2018). However, the numeric underrepresentation of
minoritized individuals in STEMM has made studying the impacts of racially and ethnically diverse teams limited, if one omits international students and international employees. Therefore, the current literature discussed is inclusive of studies across several contexts. There is opportunity within STEMM for the formation of diverse teams along racial and ethnic backgrounds if numeric diversity increases, but as will be explored through this chapter, the formation and maintenance of effective diverse teams depends on a number of factors that go beyond numeric representation alone.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY WITHIN TEAMS: IMPACT ON TEAM PERFORMANCE
It has been long theorized that racially and ethnically diverse teams may yield more positive performances on outcomes like innovation and creativity, as compared to racially and ethnically homogenous teams. This is because individuals from various race and ethnicity groups may contribute more varied experiences, perspectives, information, and ideas to help improve overall performance (Richard et al., 2021; Timmerman, 2000). However, the evidence around the impact of team diversity on team outcomes is not entirely straightforward, and in some places contradictory—with some research demonstrating associations with positive outcomes and others with negative outcomes (e.g., positive or negative performance; Bell et al., 2011; Ely et al., 2012; Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007; Joshi and Roh, 2009; Kirkman et al., 2004; Schneid, 2015; Smith-Doerr et al., 2017; Stahl et al., 2010; van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Wang et al., 2019; Webber and Donahue, 2001). Consequently, the research on demographic diversity of teams and performance is inherently unclear and limited (Avery et al., 2022; Smith-Doerr et al., 2017; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998).
A closer look at the literature suggests why these conflicting findings arise. First, not all the research investigating team diversity is focused on race and ethnicity as the primary lens of diversity. Some studies have focused on other demographic factors, such as age or gender. Some research may even define “diversity” in terms of other factors like education, values (Wang et al., 2019), different skill sets, fields of study, or other non-identity characteristics. Beyond conceptualization differences, some studies may vary in how they measure diversity (Shemla et al., 2016), which can inform inconsistencies in the results.
Second, simply having a numerically diverse team does not automatically result in positive performance outcomes. In fact, many negative emotions and experiences related to interracial anxiety may impede the interpersonal process of team dynamics, and subsequent performance. As described in depth in Chapter 2, historical systems of racial segregation have divided the United States into neighborhoods and subsequently schools that
were stratified by race. The historical legacy of policies, systems, and practices that uphold racial segregation continues today. Therefore, most friendships, relationships, and interpersonal interactions remain largely stratified by race, and interracial interactions (interactions of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds) remain infrequent, especially for White individuals (Banaji et al., 2021; Fahle et al., 2020). Since interracial interactions remain infrequent, they may provoke anxiety and negative emotions for those involved when they do happen (Avery et al., 2009; Mallet et al., 2008; Richeson and Shelton, 2007, 2012; Shelton et al., 2010). For example, a White individual may have anxiety about appearing prejudiced in the interaction, while a minoritized individual may have anxiety and concerns about being stereotyped or facing discrimination during the interaction (see also Chapter 5 and Chapter 6; Dunton and Fazio, 1997; Plant et al., 2008; Shelton, et al., 2005, 2010). These anxieties, negative emotions, and expectations may impede the cohesion, functioning, and subsequently the performance of a team, generally yielding negative performance outcomes (Richeson and Shelton, 2007; Richeson and Sommers, 2016).
Third, a numerically diverse team does not ensure that the team will also be antiracist, equitable, and inclusive of minoritized individuals. A significant body of research has focused on the range of negative experiences and outcomes of prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, stigmatization, and tokenization for minoritized individuals in spaces that are predominately White (see Chapter 5 for more information about minoritized individuals; and see Chapter 6 for more about the perpetration of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination; Richeson and Sommers, 2016). These dynamics also play out in team settings (Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). Specifically, while the incorporation of a few minoritized individuals may make a team more numerically diverse, these individuals may represent solos or “tokens” of their racial or ethnic group and face feelings of alienation and isolation. (Allaire, 2019; Basile and Black, 2019; Dickens et al., 2020; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2022). Further, individuals who are tokens may face the added pressure of becoming the symbolic representation of their entire identity group. Asymmetrical power dynamics and an unwelcoming climate may sideline minoritized individuals from full participation, thus reducing the overall potential of the team’s performance (Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). In teams that require contributions from everyone, formation of numerically diverse teams may be achievable, depending on the context; however, moving into norming inclusion may be more intense and take longer. Therefore, numerically diverse teams are not automatically inclusive and may actually perpetuate racial disparities if conditions that foster inclusion are not actively pursued.
What are those conditions, and how to effectively pursue them? To better understand positive performance outcomes, recent research has
suggested that it may not be a question of whether diverse teams perform better than non-diverse teams; rather it is a question of which conditions can realize this potential (Galinsky et al., 2015; Joshi and Roh, 2009). Under ideal conditions, there is evidence suggesting that team diversity can be leveraged to produce positive performance outcomes (Ellemers and Rink, 2016; Galinsky et al., 2015). One major condition is having a team that promotes an inclusive positive climate, which requires positive interpersonal working conditions for minoritized individuals on the team (Ely and Thomas, 2001; Ely et al., 2012; West, 2002). In short, the quality of interpersonal interactions matter. For instance, one study examined two years of data on racial composition, employee attitudes, and their impact on team performance. The researchers found that when White and minoritized team members perceived the team environment as supportive, there was a positive association between team diversity and bottom-line performance (Ely et al., 2012). Relatedly, research focused on gender diversity of teams has found that having a critical mass of women in science is an important antecedent of promoting greater inclusion and a positive climate (Griffith and Dasgupta, 2018; Ong et al., 2018; Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). While the benefits of building a critical mass for gender minorities in STEMM are known, additional research examining building a critical mass for racial and ethnic minoritized individuals on STEMM teams is needed.
Other important factors pertain to the structure and context of the team. A recently published study demonstrated that the specific structure of the team roles may help leverage the promising effects of a diverse team on positive performance. The researchers found that more racially and ethnically diverse teams were associated with greater team performance when there was greater participation diversity (i.e., individuals with a diverse range of temporal involvement, including core and peripheral performers). The authors suggest that having clarity around different team member’s participation roles provides a behavioral script for team members and eases interracial anxiety. This was supported by additional findings showing that cooperation contributes toward this pathway (Avery et al., 2022). Likewise, Bresman and Edmondson (2022) also found that diverse pharmaceutical teams underperformed relative to homogenous team due to their avoidance of interpersonal risk. However, when diverse teams worked under conditions of psychological safety, there was a positive relationship between diversity and performance.
Further, research has identified some additional conditions that may promote a positive association of team diversity and performance include the following. These may include having diversity across all levels of management teams (Richard et al., 2021), having organizational leaders with greater visionary behaviors who do not categorize their team into subgroups (Greer et al., 2012), designing teams with clear objectives to
maximize knowledge management systems (Guillaume et al., 2017), and having greater congruence between team diversity and the diversity in the local community (Richard et al., 2017).
In general, most research summarized here suggests that attending to the conditions under which a diverse team works maximizes the likelihood of more positive performance outcomes. Because STEMM work frequently occurs in teams, team leaders may be interested in actively monitoring and managing for these teamwork conditions to help facilitate positive outcomes. In the following sections, we move beyond the outcome of team performance to explore how attending to teamwork conditions may also reduce the inclination for individuals to be prejudiced, which may have important implications for fostering antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion on STEMM teams.
THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS: REDUCING PREJUDICE THROUGH INTERRACIAL INTERGROUP CONTACTS
In addition to considering how team diversity may impact performance, a related body of research has examined another outcome, namely prejudice reduction. This substantial body of research has investigated whether contact between individuals from multiple racial and ethnic groups may help reduce bias.
Against the backdrop of a racially stratified society, negative prejudices, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors toward minoritized individuals continue, in part due to the lack of exposure to minoritized individuals (Pettigrew et al., 2007). White individuals who have limited exposure to, or “contact” with, minoritized individuals are generally more likely to hold racial biases, and conversely, those with greater exposure may be generally less likely to hold those biases (Pettigrew, 1998). The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) posits that under the right conditions, interracial intergroup contact can be positive, and it can help reduce prejudice. Increasing contact with individuals of multiple racial and ethnic groups may be a key factor in challenging and mitigating racist prejudices, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors in society. For the contact to be positive and yield the intended impact of helping reduce bias, original theorists proposed that individuals must meet under four specific conditions (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). Each of these are described below.
The Conditions of the Contact Hypothesis
- Equal Status: individuals of different racial and ethnic groups must perceive and have equal standing within the situation, without asymmetrical power differences, when the individuals meet.
- Having Common Goals: the individuals during the interaction must share and work toward the same planned or intended outcomes.
- Interpersonal Cooperation: the individuals in the interaction should be working toward the common goal without competition. The individuals in the interaction should be working cooperatively toward the common goal without competition.
- Support of Authorities, Law, and Custom: leaders must formally accept and actively support the intergroup contact, reinforcing the norms, laws, and customs of this contact.
While achieving these four conditions were proposed as necessary, a meta-analysis of 713 independent samples from a total of 515 studies found that all four of these conditions do not necessarily have to be met in order for prejudice reduction to occur (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). In addition to generally achieving these said conditions, the perception of the nature of the interaction is likely a critical factor in promoting prejudice reduction. Specifically, intergroup interactions that are perceived as positive have been found to be associated with greater prejudice reduction (Hewstone, 2015; Laurence et al., 2018).
Empirical Evidence Supporting the Contact Hypothesis
A substantial body of research supports the contact hypothesis as a mechanism of reducing bias (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). For instance, one recent study incorporated 16 different samples of participants from five countries. Using a variety of research methods, the study team sought to examine the effect of intergroup contact on two distinct outcomes. These included the rates of blatant dehumanization of outgroup individuals and meta-dehumanization (i.e., perception that ingroup members will be dehumanized by the outgroup). The results demonstrated that intergroup contact was associated with a reduction in dehumanization and meta-dehumanization. While the quantity of intergroup contact was correlated with the reduction of both dehumanization and meta-dehumanization, it was found that the quality of that contact was more strongly associated with both of those outcomes (Bruneau et al., 2021). Whether this translates for reducing racial bias, as opposed to national stereotypes, is uncertain. In the age of online communication, intergroup contact through online spaces is more common. One recent meta-analysis examining 23 studies found a significant effect of online intergroup contact in reducing race-based and other forms of prejudice. The authors concluded that our new virtual contexts may be leveraged to promote prejudice reduction through intergroup interactions (Imperato et al., 2021). Some support for the contact hypothesis was also found in another recent meta-analysis (Paluck et al., 2019); however, the authors caution that while intergroup contact generally
reduces prejudice, the contact effects vary, and more research is needed to help understand which factors can promote a stronger “contact” effect.
The research on leadership provides evidence that providing support in a way that leads to the benefits of intergroup contact is also a complex issue. Several recent studies unpack the ways in which diversity rhetoric may intend to be supportive and positive yet negatively impact organizations’ diversity goals, such as the attraction, retention, and performance of minoritized groups (for more on this, see Chapter 6). Therefore, diversity rhetoric that explicitly articulates why multiple groups are brought together may yield differential impacts.
These conditions of the contact hypothesis help to shed light on why STEMM continues to lack representation. In academic and professional STEMM contexts, at the organizational level, the attributes of contact that decrease prejudice are not common. Minoritized people are more likely to be in lower status roles (see Chapter 3), and thus equal status is not present and this may carry over into teams. Further, minoritized people may come to STEMM with different values and goals, focusing more on community benefits than individual personal triumphs (see Chapter 5). For some minoritized groups, their cultures emphasize cooperation, and they may have variable experience of receiving this from White individuals. In some cases, the lack of shared culture with White individuals may result in a mismatch of expectations to guide the team’s work. Finally, there is no strong evidence that STEMM leadership, which is primarily drawn from the dominant White racial group, formally accepts and actively supports intergroup contact that includes equity and acknowledgement of multicultural values and norms. Instead, there is evidence that gatekeepers are often working to preserve the White status quo (Chapter 6) and may be reinforcing the norms, laws, and customs of their own culture. In the next section, we report on contact research that occurred in the context of STEMM organizations and other workplaces. Further, we examine what interventions have been investigated to facilitate intergroup contact. To do so, we consider evidence from multiple fields.
Contact Hypothesis Tested in Workplaces and STEMM Contexts
Some empirical evidence from organizational science demonstrates that the contact hypothesis is applicable in STEMM workplaces and educational settings, although additional research in this area is needed. Many workplaces in the United States are equal opportunity employers, which makes discrimination based on race illegal (Estlund, 2003). These structures encourage a more numerically diverse workforce, and in theory the formation of diverse work teams, although data show that certain minoritized racial and ethnic groups continue to be highly underrepresented (see previous chapters). While teams are often spaces in which individuals are working
cooperatively toward a common goal (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998), the research on teams and contact hypothesis have primarily focused on how White individuals are influenced by contact with people different from them along factors like race or ethnicity. Additional research examining intergroup contact in STEMM, from the perspective of minoritized individuals is also needed.
One recent study sought to examine whether interracial intergroup contact at work was associated with reductions in racial bias. The research team utilized 12 years of data from a nationally representative survey and focused exclusively on 3,359 Non-Hispanic White working adults. After statistically adjusting for the presence of other confounding variables, the study found that consistent with the contact hypothesis, White workers with a Black coworker had significantly less pro-White bias (Darling-Hammond et al., 2021). Further, using propensity score matching, the researchers found evidence of a causal association between contact and a reduction of pro-White bias. The impact on the Black coworker was not measured. Another study sought to examine the contact hypothesis in the context of medicine. The researchers focused on the interpersonal patterns of majority-group hospital workers across several hospitals. The study demonstrated that more frequent and positive interactions with outgroup immigrant patients were significantly associated with lower levels of prejudice toward outgroup immigrants in general. These findings remained significant after the researchers controlled for other forms of contact (including contact outside work and contact via media), suggesting that workplace contact is a meaningful and independent predictor of prejudice reduction (Pagotto et al., 2010).
Intervention and Exercise Development
Grounded in the contact hypothesis, some scholars have developed and tested interventions that build cooperation in non-STEMM team settings with the goal of reducing prejudice. Some evidence indicates that intergroup contact interventions may be promising, although a more robust and rigorous empirical investigation is needed (Paluck and Green, 2009), including those in STEMM contexts. For instance, the “Jigsaw Classroom” exercise was implemented as a cooperative teaching technique to help reduce racial bias among K–12 students in a school that had become desegregated (Aronson, 1978). The Jigsaw method requires that students work collaboratively and depend on each other to learn the course content. Each student is assigned to a small diverse team. Each team (about 4–6 teams) is of equal status and is assigned to learn a specific content area or a single “puzzle piece” of the larger topic. At the end, each team presents their “puzzle piece” of information to the larger class, and all the information of the lesson is finally incorporated. Importantly, throughout this activity, individual students do not suppress their individual racial
and ethnic identities. They recognize their individual differences, while recognizing their superordinate identity of being part of the shared class (Williams, 2004). The researchers found that this activity helped significantly reduce racial bias (Aronson, 1978; Walker and Corgan, 1998). In higher education, similar course designs have been developed, whereby students drawn from different fields of interest first engage in individual design efforts and build the confidence to interact in teams. Team-building curriculum helps students experience the advantages of a diverse set of minds as they conduct, develop, and implement a project design (Full et al., 2021). While this course does not measure prejudice reduction, it does aim to increase innovation and creativity by building diverse teams.
Despite these optimistic findings, several factors (e.g., differences in classroom spaces, ages of participants) might limit or vary the effectiveness of the Jigsaw Classroom exercise in reducing prejudice and contributing to more innovative outcomes. Therefore, the generalizability of the Jigsaw Classroom exercise might be limited (Bratt, 2008). Even in contexts in which the Jigsaw Classroom exercise is effective, scholars have cautioned against an overreliance on this and other similar mechanisms to reduce bias (Bratt, 2008) and suggested it should not be used as a replacement of larger policy changes that work to dismantle systemic racism (Williams, 2004).
Intergroup Contact Contributions to Individuation
Intergroup contact may result in reductions in prejudice toward outgroup members because it provides greater opportunity for individuation to occur among diverse team members as they get to know each other and form relationships. Generally, when individuals encounter another person, they tend to rapidly categorize them based on previous encounters or assumptions, and consequently stereotype them (see the previous chapter for more on this). This immediate and rapid categorization has been recognized as a common element of social cognition. Humans tend to be “cognitive misers,” utilizing as few cognitive resources as possible, and by categorizing individuals rapidly, limited cognitive resources are used in more streamlined ways to help expedite the impressions (social categorization, one example of this, is discussed in Chapter 5). In contrast to categorization, individuation is a process whereby a person consciously considers the unique factors of a given individual. They may consider their unique beliefs, perspectives, and intentions of the other (Swencionis and Fiske, 2013). Some research has demonstrated that this process may reduce bias by focusing attention on the individual’s specific and unique traits rather than any larger stereotyped category (Wilder, 1978). Research suggests that increased exposure to individuals from other racial and ethnic minority groups via contact may facilitate this process of individuation (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990; Swencionis and Fiske, 2013).
Individuation has the potential to be facilitated in STEMM teams. For instance, individuals who have more frequent and personal contact with individuals from outgroups may engage in more individuation because they see more individual variation (unique factors) among individuals who are part of their outgroup (Heyman and Yazdi, 2019). Frequent contact with individuals from other race and ethnicity groups can happen on numerically diverse teams. Further, individuation often occurs when people depend on each other (Fiske, 2000), as they do on STEMM teams. When a person needs to rely on a teammate, they may seek individual-level information to form more nuanced impressions (Swencionis and Fiske, 2013). In particular, when people’s outcomes depend on someone else, they seek specifically stereotype-inconsistent information (because it is more informative); they make dispositional inferences (individuated, not stereotypic impressions); and they activate brain regions associated with considering the other person’s mind (Ames and Fiske, 2013). Taken together, when people individuate, they are less inclined to rely on generalizing (often negative) stereotypes (Fiske, 2000) and may perceive members of an outgroup on an individual basis (thus less homogenous; Dovidio et al., 2017).
Some research has demonstrated that individuating may help people rehumanize members of outgroups (Swencionis and Fiske, 2013). In fact, some experimental work has examined whether training people to recognize the faces of outgroup members as specific individuals, also termed perceptual individuation, may reduce bias (Lebrecht et al., 2009). There is some evidence that individuation may help reduce implicit racial bias including in samples of children (Qian et al., 2017; Xiao et al., 2015). Leaders and heads of teams might be interested in establishing practices and environments that promote individuation, particularly of groups that have been historically and systemically minoritized. Putting people on interdependent teams, as in lab or project teams, may help people to overcome group differences because everyone contributes a “piece of the puzzle” (cf. Jigsaw Classrooms; Aronson and Gonzales, 1988). As stated above, cooperation is one of Allport’s (1954) conditions for successful intergroup contact. Further, interdependent structures—cooperation rather than individualistic competition—may be a better cultural fit for some minoritized groups (see Chapter 5; Nickerson, 2021).
INGROUP FAVORITISM AS A BARRIER TO THE DIVERSIFICATION OF STEMM TEAMS
Although there is evidence that diverse teams can yield positive outcomes, diverse teams also require energy from members to communicate through differences and wrestle with conflicts in values and perceptions of norms. Teams of ingroup members may be easier for both gatekeepers and minoritized individuals. In some cases, resegregation can occur and
can challenge the formation of diverse teams and the maintenance of positive team conditions. The phenomenon and process of resegregation has been demonstrated across several studies (Wharton and Baron, 1987), and literature exists showing evidence of institutional segregation occurring at multiple levels, including at the “micro-level” (individual and interpersonal level; see Kauff et al., 2021) and the team level (discussed below).
Resegregation is a barrier that may also have major implications for understanding prejudice reduction in the context of STEMM teams. Resegregation by race can occur within larger organizations. This has the potential to act as a major point of structural racism because interracial intergroup interactions can then never occur, or would remain rare (McKeown and Dixon, 2017; Ramiah et al., 2015). Although segregation was outlawed in the United States, self-segregation among White individuals has been found to persist and be reproduced in multiple spaces (Anicich et al., 2021). Bettencourt and colleagues note the following:
Indeed, a growing body of research suggests that the formal policies of desegregation are typically offset by informal ‘micro-ecological’ (Dixon, Tredoux, Durrheim, Finchilescu and Clack, 2008) practices of (re)segregation, enacted across a range of everyday and institutional settings (e.g., Dixon and Durrheim, 2003; Swyngedouw, 2013; Tredoux and Dixon, 2009) (Bettencourt et al., 2019).
Consequently, organizations can remain largely White, and racially homogenous White teams may persist. Resegregation, especially in the highest tiers of occupational groups, contributes to the reproduction of racial stratification within an organization (Petsko and Rosette, 2022; Ray, 2019). Most often, Non-Hispanic White men have disproportionality greater power over STEMM team resources and power in determining the composition of teams, but routinely reproduce predominately homogenous teams (Ahmad et al., 2019; Greider et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2021; see Chapter 6 for more on gatekeepers). Leadership at academic institutions, particularly research-intensive universities, show a similar demographic tendency to place a disproportionate number of White males in leadership positions (see other chapters).
Resegregation may also happen within and impact teams. For instance, one study investigated the impact of social distance on diversity preferences in group formations. The researchers found that at an abstract level, participants indicated that diversity in groups was desirable. They did, however, indicate concerns about feasibility. However, when it came to making decisions, participant’s choices were aligned with segregation. Namely, participants often selected a collaboration partner who was “dissimilar” for another person but picked someone similar for themselves. When making
decisions about forming work groups, participants exhibited the same pattern. When establishing a work group for others, the composition of the group they selected was more diverse; however, when forming a work group for themselves, the group was less diverse (Jaffé et al., 2019).
Another study examined how racial diversity of local contexts impacted White participants’ attempts to resegregate local groups to preserve White majority status. Across five studies, using a mix of methodologies, the researchers found that in the face of increased racial diversity, White individuals worked to racially segregate themselves from outgroup members by exclusions both geographic and institutional (policies, norms, customs). These resegregation patterns and preferences of White majority spaces happened across multiple local environments, including the workplace (Anicich et al., 2021). Expanding on this phenomenon, biased White individuals are less likely to have White friends who are known to affiliate with Black individuals. Therefore, this work suggests that White individuals’ networks can become increasingly segregated because some individuals may limit even indirect contact with minoritized individuals (Jacoby-Senghor, 2015).
Ironically, interventions to increase diversity in STEMM fields have included providing space for minoritized individuals to form affinity groups (as described in Chapter 5) in which they can experience STEMM research and training among other minoritized people. Co-curricular activities that provide STEMM training and professional development in small teams of other minoritized scholars have been found to be particularly important to increasing persistence of minoritized higher education and early faculty scholars (Estrada, 2011). Research examining the advantages and disadvantages of having ingroup spaces is not straightforward and deserves increased research. On the one hand, these spaces can be perceived as racist and exclusionary when gatekeepers are not sharing resources and professional benefits with minoritized individuals. Conversely, minoritized individuals who are experiencing exclusion and lack of equity find ingroup spaces to be restorative and important for their own ability to persist in STEMM environments to which they do not generally experience belonging (the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016).
MYTHS ABOUT RACIAL PROGRESS
In this chapter, we have summarized the research showing that when gatekeepers and minoritized individuals come together to form diverse teams, they encounter both challenges and opportunities. Under ideal conditions, there is opportunity for innovation and creativity that benefits from team members who have diverse perspectives and experiences. We described how several conditions of teamwork influence how well these teams function and produce desired outcomes. Positive intergroup contact between team
members can also be an opportunity to help reduce bias. Further, we find that there are strong cognitive and behavioral tendencies to retreat to ingroup-only spaces that may further perpetuate racial inequities in STEMM.
To help move toward greater inclusion, especially for teams, we must critically examine the commonly held narrative that racial progress is rapidly, naturally, and automatically moving in the direction of greater racial equity. Although widely held, this narrative is not representative of the actual racial progress landscape (Onyeador et al., 2021). When gatekeepers adhere to the narrative that inclusion will occur automatically simply by having a diverse team, a significant barrier toward promoting ADEI remains in place. This is because if racial progress is believed to be rapid, automatic, and natural, active and deliberate efforts that work to improve ADEI do not occur (Kraus et al., 2022). Thus, gatekeepers who want to make change need to recognize this myth and actively make efforts to diversify their teams, and create and manage the ideal conditions that foster inclusion on teams since numeric diversity alone is insufficient (Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). Passivity in terms of managing diverse teams will not be adequate.
The Connection of Levels: Gatekeepers, Teams, and Organizations
Here, the committee makes explicit connections between various levels of analysis covered in the chapters (e.g., teams, individuals, organizations, society), as they relate to the recommendations. As discussed in the previous chapter, gatekeepers are unlikely to become change agents themselves, but they are still a source of power over ADEI related outcomes in STEMM. Therefore, the recommendations in the previous chapter were aimed at establishing systems at the level above individual gatekeepers to help generate systems of accountability and identify patterns of bias. The recommendation presented in the current chapter, which is oriented toward gatekeepers, is meant to follow that of Chapter 6, and is supposed to exist with the implementation of organizational-level recommendations made in the upcoming chapter. Which is to say, recommendations covering individual and organizational level change are not mutually exclusive. Rather they exist together, within a multi-level approach, eschews the notion that individual actors should be the only point of intervention. Importantly, if individual gatekeepers are intentional about initiating change within their team, or space, the recommendations provide guidance for implementation.
CONCLUSION 7-1: For teams in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine organizations, increased numeric representation of minoritized individuals is critical; however, numeric diversity alone is an insufficient condition to produce positive team performance. Conditions that foster inclusion are also essential.
RECOMMENDATION 7-1: Gatekeepers who manage teams, including but not limited to principal investigators and heads of laboratories and research groups, should be intentional about creating the following conditions. These can help support positive team performance outcomes and help reduce instances of interpersonal bias.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A.S., Sabat, I., Trump-Steele, R., and King, E. (2019). Evidence-based strategies for improving diversity and inclusion in undergraduate research labs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1305.
Allaire, F.S. (2019). Navigating uncharted waters: First-generation Native Hawaiian college students in STEM. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 21(3), 305–325.
Allport, G.W., Clark, K., and Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Ames, D.L., and Fiske, S.T. (2013). Outcome dependency alters the neural substrates of impression formation. NeuroImage, 83, 599–608.
Anicich, E.M., Jachimowicz, J.M., Osborne, M.R., and Phillips, L.T. (2021). Structuring local environments to avoid racial diversity: Anxiety drives Whites’ geographical and institutional self-segregation preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104117.
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage.
Aronson, E., and Gonzalez, A. (1988). Desegregation, jigsaw, and the Mexican-American experience. Eliminating racism, 301–314. Springer.
Avery, D.R., Rhue, L.A., and McKay, P.F. (2022). Setting the stage for success: How participation diversity can help teams leverage racioethnic diversity. Journal of Management.
Avery, D.R., Richeson, J.A., Hebl, M.R., and Ambady, N. (2009). It does not have to be uncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts in Black–White interracial interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1382.
Banaji, M.R., Fiske, S.T., and Massey, D.S. (2021). Systemic racism: Individuals and interactions, institutions and society. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–21.
Basile, V., and Black, R. (2019). They hated me till I was one of the “good ones”: Toward understanding and disrupting the differential racialization of undergraduate African American STEM majors. The Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 379–390
Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L., and Briggs, A.L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743.
Bettencourt, L., Dixon, J., and Castro, P. (2019). Understanding how and why spatial segregation endures: A systematic review of recent research on intergroup relations at a micro-ecological scale. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2).
Bratt, C. (2008). The Jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations evident. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 403–419.
Bresman, H., and Edmondson, A.C. (2022). Exploring relationship between team diversity, psychological safety and team performance: Evidence from pharmaceutical drug development. (No. 22-055). Harvard Business School Working Paper.
Bruneau, E., Hameiri, B., Moore-Berg, S.L., and Kteily, N. (2021). Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(6), 906–920.
Darling-Hammond, S., Lee, R.T., and Mendoza-Denton, R. (2021). Interracial contact at work: Does workplace diversity reduce bias? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1114–1131.
Dickens, D., Jones, M., and Hall, N. (2020). Being a token Black female faculty member in physics: Exploring research on gendered racism, identity shifting as a coping strategy, and inclusivity in physics. The Physics Teacher, 58(5), 335–337.
Dovidio, J.F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F.M., and Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620.
Dunton, B.C., and Fazio, R.H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 316–326.
Ellemers, N., and Rink, F. (2016). Diversity in work groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 49–53.
Ely, R.J., and Thomas, D.A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
Ely, R.J., Padavic, I., and Thomas, D.A. (2012). Racial diversity, racial asymmetries, and team learning environment: Effects on performance. Organization Studies, 33(3), 341–362.
Estlund, C. (2003). Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse democracy. Oxford University Press.
Estrada, M. (2011). Ingredients for improving the culture of STEM degree attainment with co-curricular supports for underrepresented minority students. Commissioned by the National Academy of Science.
Fahle, E.M., Reardon, S.F., Kalogrides, D., Weathers, E.S., and Jang, H. (2020). Racial segregation and school poverty in the United States, 1999–2016. Race and Social Problems, 12(1), 42–56.
Fiske, S.T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 299–322.
Fiske, S.T., and Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. Academic Press.
Full, R.J., Bhatti, H.A., Jennings, P., Ruopp, R., Jafar, T., Matsui, J., Flores, L.A., and Estrada, M. (2021). Eyes toward Tomorrow program enhancing collaboration, connections, and community using bioinspired design. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 61(5), 1966–1980. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab187
Galinsky, A.D., Todd, A.R., Homan, A.C., Phillips, K.W., Apfelbaum, E.P., Sasaki, S.J., Richeson, J.A., Olayon, J.B., and Maddux, W.W. (2015). Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 742–748.
Gilliam, M., Jagoda, P., Fabiyi, C., Lyman, P., Wilson, C., Hill, B., and Bouris, A. (2017). Alternate reality games as an informal learning tool for generating STEM engagement among underrepresented youth: A qualitative evaluation of the source. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 295–308.
Greer, L.L., Homan, A.C., De Hoogh, A.H., and Den Hartog, D.N. (2012). Tainted visions: The effect of visionary leader behaviors and leader categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethnically diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 203–213.
Greider, C.W., Sheltzer, J.M., Cantalupo, N.C., Copeland, W.B., Dasgupta, N., Hopkins, N., Jansen, J.M., Joshua-Tor, L., McDowell, G.S., Metcalf, J.L., McLaughlin, B., Olivarius, A., O’Shea, E.K., Raymond, J.L., Ruebain, D., Steitz, J.A., Stillman, B., Tilghman, S.M., Valian, V., Villa-Komaroff, L., and Wong, J.Y. (2019). Increasing gender diversity in the STEM research workforce. Science, 366(6466), 692–695. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz0649
Griffith, E.E., and Dasgupta, N. (2018). How the demographic composition of academic science and engineering departments influences workplace culture, faculty experience, and retention risk. Social Sciences, 7(5), 71.
Guillaume, Y.R., Dawson, J.F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S.A., and West, M.A. (2017). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 276–303.
Handelsman, J., Elgin, S., Estrada, M., Hays, S., Johnson, T., Miller, S., Mingo. V., Shaffer, C., and Williams, J. (2022). Achieving STEM diversity: Fix the classrooms. Science Policy Forum, 376, 1057–1059. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn9515
Hewstone, M. (2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71(2), 417–438.
Heyman, G.D., and Yazdi, H. (2019). The role of individuation in the development of intergroup relations. Infant and Child Development, 28(2), e2121.
Horwitz, S.K., and Horwitz, I.B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.
Imperato, C., Schneider, B.H., Caricati, L., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., and Mancini, T. (2021). Allport meets internet: A meta-analytical investigation of online intergroup contact and prejudice reduction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 81, 131–141.
Jacoby-Senghor, D.S., Sinclair, S., and Smith, C.T. (2015). When bias binds: Effect of implicit outgroup bias on ingroup affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 415.
Jaffé, M.E., Rudert, S.C., and Greifeneder, R. (2019). You should go for diversity, but I’d rather stay with similar others: Social distance modulates the preference for diversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103881.
Joshi, A., and Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
Katzenbach, J.R., and Smith, D.K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
Kauff, M., Beneda, M., Paolini, S., Bilewicz, M., Kotzur, P., O’Donnell, A. W., Stevenson, C., Wagner, U., and Christ, O. (2021). How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12398
Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., and Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 29(3), 334–368.
Kraus, M.W., Torrez, B., and Hollie, L. (2022). How narratives of racial progress create barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 108–113.
Laurence, J., Schmid, K., and Hewstone, M. (2018). Ethnic diversity, inter-group attitudes and countervailing pathways of positive and negative inter-group contact: An analysis across workplaces and neighbourhoods. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 719–749.
Lebrecht, S., Pierce, L.J., Tarr, M.J., and Tanaka, J.W. (2009). Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit racial bias. PLoS ONE, 4, e4215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004215
Mallett, R.K., Wilson, T.D., and Gilbert, D.T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265.
McKeown, S., and Dixon, J. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), e12295.
Morton, T.R., Gee, D.S., and Woodson, A.N. (2019). Being vs. becoming: Transcending STEM identity development through Afropessimism, moving toward a Black X consciousness in STEM. The Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 327–342.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21739
National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007
Nickerson, C. (2021). Understanding collectivist cultures. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-are-collectivistic-cultures.html#:~:text=In%20collectivist%20cultures%2C%20people%20feel,conformity%20to%20roles%20and%20norms
Ong, M., Smith, J.M., and Ko, L.T. (2018). Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: Marginal and central spaces for persistence and success. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 206–245.
Onyeador, I.N., Daumeyer, N.M., Rucker, J.M., Duker, A., Kraus, M.W., and Richeson, J.A. (2021). Disrupting beliefs in racial progress: Reminders of persistent racism alter perceptions of past, but not current, racial economic equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 753–765.
Osseo-Asare, A., Balasuriya, L., Huot, S.J., Keene, D., Berg, D., Nunez-Smith, M., Genao, I., Latimore, D., and Boatright, D. (2018). Minority resident physicians’ views on the role of race/ethnicity in their training experiences in the workplace. JAMA Network Open, 1(5), e182723–e182723. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2723
Pagotto, L., Voci, A., and Maculan, V. (2010). The effectiveness of intergroup contact at work: Mediators and moderators of hospital workers’ prejudice towards immigrants. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 317–330.
Paluck, E.L., and Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 339–367.
Paluck, E.L., Green, S.A., and Green, D.P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158.
Petsko, C.D., and Rosette, A.S. (2022). Are leaders still presumed white by default? Racial bias in leader categorization revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85.
Pettigrew, T.F., and Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.
Pettigrew, T.F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., and Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(4), 411–425.
Phillips, K.W., Medin, D., Lee, C.D., Bang, M., Bishop, S., and Lee, D.N. (2014). How diversity works. Scientific American, 311(4), 42–47.
Plant, E.A., Butz, D.A., and Tartakovsky, M. (2008). Interethnic interactions: Expectancies, emotions, and behavioral intentions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 555–574.
Qian, M.K., Quinn, P.C., Heyman, G.D., Pascalis, O., Fu, G., and Lee, K. (2017) Perceptual individuation training (but not mere exposure) reduces implicit racial bias in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 845.
Ramiah, A.A., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., and Floe, C. (2015). Why are all the White (Asian) kids sitting together in the cafeteria? Resegregation and the role of intergroup attributions and norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 100–124.
Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.
Richard, O.C., Stewart, M.M., McKay, P.F., and Sackett, T.W. (2017). The impact of store-unit–community racial diversity congruence on store-unit sales performance. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2386–2403.
Richard, O.C., Triana, M.D.C., and Li, M. (2021). The effects of racial diversity congruence between upper management and lower management on firm productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1355–1382.
Richeson, J.A., and Shelton, J.N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316–320.
________. (2012). Stereotype threat in interracial interactions. Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application, 231–245. Oxford University Press.
Richeson, J.A., and Sommers, S.R. (2016). Toward a social psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 439–463.
Robotham, K.J., Settles, I.H., Spence Cheruvelil, K., Montgomery, G.M., and Elliott, K.C. (2021). Just and inclusive team climates affect mentoring satisfaction: The roles of negative mentoring and race. Journal of Career Development.
Rodriguez, S.L., Perez, R.J., and Schulz, J.M. (2021). How STEM lab settings influence graduate school socialization and climate for students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.
Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Li, C., and Kabst, R. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733–756.
Shelton, J.N., Richeson, J.A., and Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1189–1202.
Shelton, J.N., West, T.V., and Trail, T.E. (2010). Concerns about appearing prejudiced: Implications for anxiety during daily interracial interactions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 329–344.
Shemla, M., and Wegge, J. (2019). Managing diverse teams by enhancing team identification: The mediating role of perceived diversity. Human Relations, 72(4), 755–777.
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., and Jehn, K.A. (2016). A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S89–S106.
Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S.N., and Sacco, T. (2017). How diversity matters in the US science and engineering workforce: A critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and organizational contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 139–153.
Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., and Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690–709.
Starck, J.G., Sinclair, S., and Shelton, J.N. (2021). How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16).
Swencionis, J.K., and Fiske, S.T. (2013). More human: Individuation in the 21st century. Humanness and dehumanization, 284–301. Psychology Press.
Timmerman, T.A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–606.
van Knippenberg, D., and Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
Walker, I., and Crogan, M. (1998). Academic performance, prejudice, and the jigsaw classroom: New pieces to the puzzle. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8(6), 381–393.
Wang, J., Cheng, G.H.L., Chen, T., and Leung, K. (2019). Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 693–708.
Webber, S.S., and Donahue, L.M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.
West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.
Wharton, A.S., and Baron, J.N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 574–587.
Wilder, D.A. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1361.
Wilkins-Yel, K.G., Arnold, A., Bekki, J., Natarajan, M., Bernstein, B., and Randall, A.K. (2022). “I can’t push off my own Mental Health”: Chilly STEM climates, mental health, and stem persistence among Black, Latina, and White Graduate women. Sex Roles, 86(3), 208–232.
Williams, D. (2004). Improving race relations in higher education: The jigsaw classroom as a missing piece to the puzzle. Urban Education, 39(3), 316–344.
Williams, K.Y., and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 77–140.
Xiao, W.S., Fu, G., Quinn, P.C., Qin, J., Tanaka, J.W., Pascalis, O., and Lee, K. (2015). Individuation training with other-race faces reduces preschoolers’ implicit racial bias: A link between perceptual and social representation of faces in children. Developmental Science, 18(4), 655–663.
