1

Introduction

Every individual, regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin, deserves the opportunity to pursue an education or career in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) in a welcoming, supportive, and antiracist environment. Yet despite significant investments by federal, state, and local governments, philanthropies, and the private sector to address diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations, there are still substantial barriers that produce inequitable opportunities and outcomes. As a result, Black people, Indigenous people, Latine¹ people, Asian American people, and people from other systematically minoritized racial and ethnic groups face inequities in STEMM higher education and the workforce. Black people, for example, account for 11 percent of all jobs but only nine percent of STEMM jobs, while Latine and Hispanic individuals account for 17 percent of all jobs but only eight percent of STEMM jobs (Fry, 2021). Of all medical residents, only 7.8 percent identified as Hispanic, 5.8 percent identified as Black, and less than one percent identified as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander (American Association of Medicial Colleges, 2021).

The economic prosperity of the United States and that of its residents depends on the nation’s continued success in STEMM. The Bureau of Labor Statistics project that by 2030 employment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)² occupations will increase by 10.5 percent

___________________

¹ This term is used in the report to represent Latine and Hispanic people, except in instances where the data and research use “Hispanic” specifically.

and in medical occupations by 16 percent, compared to only 7.5 percent for non-STEM occupation (BLS, 2022). STEM jobs³ have higher-than-average wages than non-STEM jobs—$95,420 versus $40,120 in 2021 (BLS, 2022)—and employment rates that are more resistant to economic shocks; unemployment in STEM jobs reached nine percent in 2020, for example, versus 16 percent for non-STEM jobs (Board, 2021). This makes pursuing careers in STEM fields highly attractive. However, the cumulative and compounding effects of an array of racialized societal factors—including the history, culture, ideology, and interactions of institutions and policies that systematically disadvantage people from minoritized groups—create substantial barriers that make it difficult for almost half of the nation’s population to join and thrive in the STEM workforce.

Challenges, however, begin long before people from systematically minoritized groups enter the workforce or higher education programs. As early as fourth grade, reading and math scores for Black students, for example, lag behind those of White and Asian students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022a,b). This gap is correlated, at least in part, to a school’s racial composition, where the achievement of Black students is lower in schools with a higher percentage of Black students compared to those who attend schools with a lower percentage of Black students (Bohrnstedt, 2015). A similar gap exists for Hispanic students (Hemphill and Vanneman, 2011). By eighth grade, 85 percent of White students have passed algebra one, a milestone in STEMM preparedness, compared to 65 percent of Black students and 72 percent of Latine students (Office for Civil Rights, 2018). In postsecondary education, Black, Hispanic, and White students declare STEM majors at roughly the same rate (Xie, 2015; Griffith, 2010), but while 58 percent of White students earn a STEM baccalaureate degree, only 43 percent of Latine students and 34 percent of Black students earn a STEM baccalaureate degree, with 40 percent of Black students and 37 percent of Latine students switching out of STEM majors before earning their degree (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019).

STUDY ORIGIN AND STATEMENT OF TASK

Over the last 20 years, based on the inequities described above, the National Academies has convened numerous committees and workshops and issued over 80 reports exploring various aspects of the need to make

___________________

² While the committee’s charge is to address antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM, this report also uses the term STEM when data or studies cited only refer to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and do not include medicine.

³ These data include employees of all races.

STEMM more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. (See Appendix A for a summary of previous, related reports.) Common themes that have emerged from this robust body of work include the need to:

• Develop and institute inclusive leadership practices in STEMM institutions;
• Foster an environment that provides social and behavioral support for underrepresented/under-resourced individuals across STEM education and careers;
• Support and increase pathway programs that focus on underrepresented/under-resourced individuals; and,
• Fortify data collection, evaluation, and accountability of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.⁴

More recently, the National Academies’ Committee on Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Antiracism in 21st Century STEMM Organizations, under the auspices of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and the Board on Higher Education and Workforce, hosted a national summit that “highlighted how racism operates at different levels in STEMM settings; reviewed policies and practices for confronting systemic racism; and explored ways to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM settings” (the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). The summit also explored “the empirical and experiential evidence related to the ways in which systemic racism and other barriers impede STEMM careers for historically minoritized racial/ethnic groups, and ways to address these barriers” (the National Academies, 2021).

The summit represented the first step in responding to a letter sent by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In this letter, Representative Johnson asked the National Academies to act on research and policy issues related to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and the racial biases in the nation’s systems that disadvantage people from minoritized backgrounds in pursuit of science, engineering, and medical studies and careers” (the National Academies, 2021). To build on this important work, the National Academies convened the Committee on Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Antiracism in 21st Century STEMM Organizations to review the literature on bias and racism in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine workplaces; review

___________________

⁴ The National Academies’ collection of publications on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is available at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/collection/97/diversity-equity-and-inclusion

approaches to increase racial and ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations (e.g., universities, nonprofit organizations, and industry); offer best policies and practices for diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism initiatives; and outline goals for relevant, future research and for organizational strategic planning. The Statement of Task for the committee’s work is provided in Box 1-1.

To respond to its Statement of Task, the committee conducted an intensive literature review, convened a series of evidence-gathering activities, including public workshops with presentations on strategies for diversity in STEMM organizations, system and culture change theories and practices, and operationalizing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in

STEMM organizations. The committee also commissioned four papers on the following topics:

• Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM: A Focus on Research on Indigenous People
• Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM: A Focus on Research on Latine and Hispanic People
• Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM: A Focus on Research on Asian American People
• Challenges and Counter-Arguments to Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM

The committee cites data from the first three papers focused on Indigenous, Latine and Hispanic, and Asian American people in this report, while the fourth report on challenges and counter-arguments served to deepen the committee’s understanding of key issues. All four papers can be found in the report’s public access file on the National Academies website.⁵

The committee also jointly sponsored a workshop with the National Academies Roundtable on Black Men and Women in SEM⁶ during which presenters shared their lived experiences and expertise in leading antiracist programs. In addition to being responsive to its charge, the committee recognized that understanding lived experiences is important and would complement the scientific literature on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

STUDY APPROACH AND SCOPE

Beginning in fall 2021, the National Academies conducted an extensive nomination and appointment process to assemble the Committee on Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations. This included a public call for nominations for experts in diversity science, social and cognitive psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human resources, and higher education, as well as experienced practitioners who have led diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In accordance with the National Academies’ policies, careful consideration was given to the balance and composition of the committee’s

___________________

⁵ The public access file for this report can be found at https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/ManageRequest.aspx?key=48997

⁶ The National Academies Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in SEM is a panel of leaders focused on increasing the representation, retention, and inclusiveness of Black men and Black women in science, engineering, and medicine: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/roundtable-on-black-men-and-black-women-in-science-engineering-and-medicine

expertise and experience and a thorough examination of potential conflicts of interest was conducted to ensure the transparency and integrity of the study process. Through this process, the committee identified areas where additional expertise would be needed, and invited additional experts to present data and research and commission literature reviews to complement the committee’s expertise.

In its approach to the Statement of Task, the committee carefully considered the scope and presentation of the complex issues of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The challenges experienced by minoritized people in STEMM are deeply rooted in history, law, cultural and institutional practices, and interpersonal biases and assumptions—factors that must be understood in depth to discern ways forward. At the same time, while there may some shared experiences, these sociocultural factors differ for different minoritized groups and individuals, precluding a one-size-fits-all solution. Thus, the committee elected to focus on the challenges facing Black Americans in STEMM to demonstrate the inquiry that is required, noting prominence of work on this topic both within the Academies and in the research community. This focus is in no way intended to diminish the importance of addressing challenges facing other minoritized groups but rather to provide guidance for future work to address their concerns, including a call for additional research that investigates the unique racialized issues facing these groups in the research agenda. When the committee turned to the National Academies for precedent, it found that the committee tasked with creating the report Measuring Racial Discrimination (2004) fulfilled its charge in a similar manner.

With this focus, the committee leveraged the expertise and experience of the National Academies Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in SEM to respond to its charge on reviewing evidence on the “lived experience,” recognizing that the existing literature may not fully capture these perspectives. Thus, the committee conducted a series of structured interviews with Roundtable members to provide illustrative, humanizing examples to supplement the scientific literature (see Chapter 4). The narratives provide a window into the impacts of racism, providing a deeper understanding of the harms that minoritized people experience, as well as the ways that people find mentorship, support, and other guidance on their paths from a STEMM education to a career in STEMM.

Definitions and Terminology

To guide its work, the committee identified key concepts and terms in the Statement of Task that it needed to define, such as STEMM, race, antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Further, the committee sought to determine which organizations to include in its review.

STEMM and STEMM Organizations

To determine how broadly to define STEMM, the committee referred to the National Science Foundation’s definition, which includes chemistry, computer and information science and engineering, engineering, geosciences, life sciences, materials research, mathematical sciences, physics and astronomy, psychology, social sciences, and STEM education and learning research (National Science Foundation, n.d.). In addition, the committee considered fields that rely on middle-skill occupations, which are those that require significant STEM expertise but do not require a bachelor’s degree (the National Academies, 2017). Included in this expansive definition of STEM are skilled technical occupations such as aircraft mechanics and service technicians, first-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers, and heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics. To address the second “M” in STEMM, the committee included fields that employ individuals in the broad range of health care occupations as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which include health care practitioners, technical occupations, and health care support occupations, such as medical equipment preparers and pharmacy aids (BLS, 2021).

Next, the committee determined the range of STEMM organizations on which it would focus, which included universities, STEMM-focused nonprofit organizations, industry, professional societies, hospitals, and medical centers; however, when the committee conducted its review of the literature, it did not limit itself to publications focused exclusively on STEMM. The intent was to capture findings from a broader range of research and thinking on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Thus, the committee hopes that its recommendations and supporting evidence, which are directed at STEMM organizations, will also be relevant and implementable beyond STEMM organizations.

Race and Ethnicity

Critically, the committee deliberated about how to define and use the term race, recognizing the complexity and inherent biases associated with this construct. Ultimately, the committee adopted a definition of race as developed by researchers and recognized by the Smithsonian (2022), described in Chapter 3 of the present report:

There exist many different ways to describe race. Many researchers choose to recognize race as a social construction, “based on observed phenotypic manifestations of presumed, underlying genetic differences” (Brown et al., 1999). The committee, in their deliberations, also referenced the Smithsonian Institution definition of race: “a human-invented, shorthand term used to describe and categorize people into various social groups

based on characteristics like skin color, physical features, and genetic heredity. Race, while not a valid biological concept, is a real social construction that gives or denies benefits and privileges” (Smithsonian).

The committee also took care to acknowledge the ways in which race, as well as ethnicity, exist as fluid categories. As social constructs, these concepts have changed over time, as the Census Bureau notes:

Race and ethnicity categories generally reflect social definitions in the United States and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. We recognize that the race and ethnicity categories include racial, ethnic, and national origins and sociocultural groups (BLS, August 2021).

The committee notes that the nature of race in the United States has evolved since the first census of 1790, as further discussed in Chapter 3; furthermore, the committee acknowledges that the concept of race will continue to evolve beyond this report. As such, the committee has agreed upon set definitions for the purpose of this report. The definitions employed here are largely based on the 1997 Office of Management and Budget’s definitions for race and ethnicity, used in U.S. Censuses (see Box 1-2). Chapter 3 provides more in-depth explanations of each racial category.

The committee also faced the decision about whether to capitalize the letter “w” in White. Consistent with the National Academies’ practice of capitalizing the first letter of racial and ethnic designations, the committee decided to capitalize the “w” in White. While the committee acknowledges that this may be controversial, it felt that the alternative lowercase “w” could implicitly affirm that Whiteness is the standard and racial norm, thus ignoring the way Whiteness functions in institutions and communities.

The committee also carefully considered whether to include other identities and other dimensions of diversity, such as gender, age, and disability, as they related to the Statement of Task. The committee came to the consensus that race and ethnicity would be the primary factors and primary lens of analysis for its work. Despite this specific focus, the committee acknowledges and recognizes that, consistent with intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989), individuals belong to multiple identity groups, each associated with varying structures of privilege, power, and oppression, and these factors subsequently shape unique experiences, Thus, the report presents examples in which other identities are included to elucidate findings.

Finally, the committee deliberated extensively on the terms it would use to discuss people from minoritized groups and those in power within STEMM contexts. The committee took numerous factors into consideration, including the importance of contemporary context, the acknowledgement of history, terms favored by individual racial and ethnic groups, the dynamic aspect of language, experiences of mistreatment and racism, numeric underrepresentation, existing structures and systems of oppression, the role of power in STEMM, the use of active versus passive language, the use of nouns versus verbs, the consideration of who is centered (and who is not), and how to name those in power (i.e., gatekeepers). This careful deliberation yielded consensus on the terminology used in this report: people from groups who have been systemically minoritized based on their race or ethnicity, minoritized people, and people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

In certain instances, the committee includes “Black people, Indigenous people, and Latine people” in advance of these terms to emphasize the specific and pronounced ways people from these groups have been impacted by racism. Although the committee acknowledges limitations to the agreed upon terms, they represent an honest effort to best represent the literature and the lives of the people represented.

Systemic and Structural Factors

Despite substantial investments in programs aimed at helping people from systematically minoritized groups enter, persist, succeed, and thrive in STEMM, significant gaps persist. As this report will show, the root cause of

these gaps does not reflect the abilities or interests of individuals. Rather, they are the result of systemic and structural issues arising from the legacies of policies and practices designed to disadvantage people from historically minoritized groups along with institutional cultures that, intentionally or otherwise, create exclusionary and discriminatory environments based on biased notions of success and prestige. Indeed, students from systematically minoritized groups may feel compelled to persist and meet standards that are inherently biased against them, rather than feel at ease, welcomed, valued, and respected for who they are.

Past efforts to increase participation from systematically minoritized groups in STEMM have fallen short. Many such efforts do not acknowledge the historical context of discrimination that minoritized individuals experience or they do not adequately focus on the policies, processes, and power structures that create racial and ethnic bias in STEMM. In this report, statistics describing the discrepancies in wages, hiring, degree completion, and other dimensions illustrate these points, and the report provides specific descriptions of the populations and characteristics for each statistic. This report explores the factors that produced system and structural barriers for minoritized groups, such as the historic redlining of predominantly Black neighborhoods, disproportionate funding of White-majority versus minority serving land grant institutions, and discouraging Black veterans from attending college. It examines how systemic and structural issues operate at the organizational, group, individual, and interpersonal levels and discusses theories of organizational change and practices that have been successful in changing organizational culture to create diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments in which everyone can thrive.

However, simply creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments is not sufficient to ensure that historically minoritized groups have frictionless access to STEMM education and professional pathways. Rather, organizations and the individuals within them need to be antiracist—to engage in an active, intentional, and dynamic set of actions that dismantle and disrupt the policies, practices, attitudes, cultures, and systems that confer power and privilege to White people over others (see Glossary for the fullest version of the committee’s definition of antiracism). Being antiracist requires understanding and acknowledging the history of racial disparities in America, and it requires a daily commitment to fighting racism that each individual and each institution carries out with intention.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report aims to synthesize the existing body of research on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations; given increasing interest in these issues and the growing evidence base, it is

unlikely it will be the last. The report organizes this synthesis into three distinct parts: establishing the broader context of the issues in the United States; describing the challenges for STEMM organizations; and proposing recommendations for change. Throughout, the committee does not present antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion as a single set of goals that organizations can work toward, achieve, and then declare the job done. Instead, the committee takes the view that these efforts demand sustained attention, leadership, and resources to flourish. The recommendations outlined in this report provide guidance to actors and stakeholders across the STEMM enterprise to build this type of effort into existing systems.

Part I: Broader Context of Antiracism, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the United States

Part I establishes the historical and contemporary context for the issues of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations. The committee describes how actions taken against certain racial and ethnic groups in U.S. history have had persistent, negative effects. The report draws connections between historic events, and similarly racialized policies, and the issues that confront people in STEMM organizations today. The committee contends that understanding the history of the United States is critical not only to understand how present-day racial and ethnic bias and discrimination operate, but also to imagine how to dismantle the systems of oppression that presently impact systematically minoritized groups based on their race and ethnicity.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the ways that the different levels of analysis in this report interact in a nested fashion, as the historical and societal context provide context for STEMM organizations, which in turn influence the professional and educational environments in which groups and teams operate, all of which impact the microclimates in which individual people learn and work.

Chapters 2 and 3 provide the context and background related to the issues outlined in the Statement of Task. Chapter 2 begins with a review of U.S. history and how critical policies and practices are foundational to racism in present day America. Chapter 3 includes the history of data collection by race and ethnicity in the United States, as well as information about the dynamic nature and limitations of racial and ethnic categories. The chapter also includes data on racial and ethnic representation at different education and career levels in STEMM. Finally, Chapter 4 highlights the lived experience of Black people involved in STEMM through structured interviews with members of the National Academies Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in SEM. This chapter, which also includes information about the nature of evidence and ways of knowing, uses excerpts from these interviews as illustrations of issues seen in the data.

Part II: Describing the Challenges for STEMM Organizations

Part II of the report, comprising Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, explores how antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion are manifest in modern day STEMM contexts. Part II reviews the layers within STEMM organizations and how the larger culture and climate of an organization can influence the working environments of specific groups or teams, which may have their own microcultures and microclimates that directly impact the individuals in that unit, as Figure 1-1 illustrates.

Within this general context, Part II examines how individuals, groups and teams, and organizations operate, particularly in relation to antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The chapters also explore how policies, practices, and programs can shift norms, values, and behaviors at each level. The emphasis on changes further upstream, within organizations or groups and teams, does not preclude the work or responsibility of individuals, particularly those in leadership, gatekeeping, and decisionmaking roles; owever, the report focuses on changes to structures, systems, and institutions as a way to guide and shape individual behavior.

Part III: Recommendations

Finally, Part III of the report offers a vision for future directions in STEMM antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion research. Chapter 9 outlines a research agenda, a detailed set of issues that the committee recommends for future investment, prioritization, and investigation. The research agenda provides a roadmap for future work to address existing

gaps in data collection and research. Pursuing this research will contribute to a greater understanding of the landscape and the changing culture and climate. It will also inform evidence-based strategies for structural, systemic, and institutional changes centered on antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In addition to the core content, there are three appendices that supplement this report. Appendix A summarizes four previous, related National Academies reports. Appendix B contains summary tables for completion rates by degree type, by race and ethnicity, and by gender. Appendix C provides an overview of the process for the structured interviews that appear in Chapter 4. Appendix D includes the biographies of the committee members.

REFERENCES