Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09827-1

Exploring the Unstated: Using Critical Discourse Analysis

to Examine Faculty Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Statements

Max K. Sherard1 · Tatiane Russo‑Tait2

Received: 28 April 2024 / Accepted: 17 September 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024

Abstract
In higher education, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements are texts written by
faculty members which explain their commitments to improving education for marginal-
ized students. Requesting, reviewing, and acting upon DEI statements is just one prac-
tice, among others, which higher education institutions can use to transform individual
and institutional practices, towards more just ends. However, DEI statements can become
extensions of the curriculum vitae rather than opportunities for deeper critical reflection.
In this study, we examine a large R1 university in the Southwestern US which required its
faculty to submit written reflections about their contributions to diversity. We collected 22
statements from faculty in two disciplines: life sciences and quantitative sciences. Drawing
on techniques from critical discourse analysis, we analyzed these statements to understand
what meanings are expressed and what factors constrain or support faculty in writing more
critical reflections. Results demonstrate that most faculty’s statements: (a) do not clearly
explicate DEI problems or causes; (b) over represent remedies to problems; and (c) locate
problems within or between individuals, rather than within systems. We hypothesize that
this is due (in part) to influence of major funding sources and broader neoliberal discourses
about knowing, learning, and success in higher education.

Keywords Diversity · Equity · Inclusion · DEI statements · Critical discourse analysis ·

STEM education · Higher Education

Introduction

In this paper, we investigate the meanings within diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
statements in STEM higher education. DEI statements are short texts, written by faculty
members, which explain their commitments to improving education for marginalized
students through their teaching, service, and research (Soucek, 2022a). Although DEI

* Max K. Sherard
max.sherard@unt.edu
1
Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
2
Department of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 6 Page 2 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

statements are inconsistently used across STEM, they are growing in popularity as a strat-
egy for improving post-secondary STEM education (Paul & Maranto, 2023). However, two
problems complicate this growth:
First, DEI statements have come under extreme public scrutiny and legislation (Wood,
2023). As of 2024, there are 30 bills across 23 state legislatures which seek to limit or ban
the use of DEI funding, statements, or organizations within higher education institutions
(Bryant & Appleby, 2023). As of May 2024; six of these bills in five states (FL, TX, ND,
SD, and TN) have been signed into law by governors (Bryant & Appleby, 2023). Many
reasons are cited for constraining DEI practices in higher education institutions: some
argue that DEI statements serve as political litmus tests which homogenize higher educa-
tion (e.g., Ortner, 2011), while others view DEI statements as no different than teaching
statements, and are therefore redundant (Soucek, 2022b). Without legal support for assess-
ing and promoting DEI in STEM higher education, it will become increasingly difficult to
ameliorate injustices in STEM.
Second, even in states where DEI statements are legally allowed and robustly used
(e.g., California; Soucek, 2022b), there is little clarity around whether and how DEI state-
ments help. While guidelines exist (e.g., Cossgriff-Hernandez et al., 2023), the methods for
requesting DEI statements from faculty members are largely determined by the individu-
als who serve on hiring committees. While some studies have examined university (Foste
et al., 2023) or corporate DEI statements (Corrington et al., 2022), no research has exam-
ined the meanings within faculty DEI statements. This is likely due to the private nature of
faculty DEI statements (as compared with the public nature of corporate or university DEI
statements). Once reviewed, departments and equity-officers ostensibly use the informa-
tion to engage in some action (e.g., hiring a faculty candidate or making an institutional
change). However, even less is understood about what happens after the statements are
reviewed. Without evidence-based guidance, the practice of requesting and reviewing DEI
statements can become a ‘box to be checked’ or more generally subverted by faculty who
are not truly committed to DEI (Ficht & Levashina, 2023).
As scholars working in Texas and Georgia—states where faculty discussions about DEI
have been recently banned (McGee, 2023; Associated Press, 2023)—we believe DEI state-
ments are necessary to encourage critical reflection and transform teaching/research prac-
tices. While we cannot turn tides of public support for DEI activities, we can contribute
to a better understanding about the process of requesting, reviewing, and acting upon DEI
statements. In this study, we explore the use of diversity statements at a large R1 university
in the U. S. Southwest.
The purpose of our inquiry is threefold. First, we focus on STEM (rather than social
sciences, humanities, etc.) because STEM is frequently constructed as exceptional, neutral,
and apolitical Haraway, 2020; Leyva, et al., 2022a, 2022b; McGee, 2021). This objective
rendering of STEM often works to obscure the ways in which STEM and STEM educa-
tion reify oppressive structures in society, rather than deconstruct and reimagine a more
just society (Harding, 1992; Battey & Leyva, 2016; McGee, 2020). Second, we focus on
STEM faculty DEI statements because these documents contain narratives which show-
case how faculty reason about social identity, inequity, and success in STEM. However,
rather than attributing these narratives solely to the minds of individuals (i.e., a cognitive
explanation), we take a critical perspective (Fairclough, Jessop, & Sawyer, 2003) and view
these statements as deeply shaped by (and shaping of) existing social structures, such as
the local institution, disciplinary values and practices, and broader socially shared ideolo-
gies. Finally, we hope to use our analysis to critique and reimagine the way DEI statements
are requested, collected, reviewed, and acted upon in STEM higher education.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 3 of 39 6

To do this work, we collected a corpus of 22 faculty diversity statements from two

STEM departments: a life science department and a quantitative science department. Draw-
ing on theoretical frameworks and analytical techniques from critical discourse studies
(Entman, 2007; Fairclough, 2003; Sherard & Azevedo, 2023; van Leeuwen, 1993, 1996),
we analyzed the texts to better understand how faculty discuss issues related to diversity,
equity, and inclusion. The following research questions guided our inquiry:

1. What do individual faculty say in these requests for information?

2. How are broader discourses about social identity and STEM differently expressed across
the corpus of faculty diversity statements?
3. Why do these reflections look the way they do? That is, what social facets—near to the
situation or more broadly in society—possibly shape this corpus of statements?

In line with our three goals, our research questions are structured using Janks’ (1997)
three-phase process for conducting a critical discourse analysis. First, Janks recommends
fully describing the corpus of texts. Our first research question aims to describe the variety
of lengths, forms, and approaches to writing about DEI issues in STEM. Second, Janks rec-
ommends interpreting the corpus of texts, or identifying cross-cutting themes throughout
texts that reveal broader narratives which circulate a group of people participating in some
practice. Our second research question aims to interpret the diversity statements by iden-
tifying various discourses about DEI that seem to be present amongst the corpus of texts.
Finally, Janks recommends explaining the corpus of texts. That is, Janks asks researchers
to model the social forces which shape the forms and meanings across a corpus of texts.
Our third research question aims to explain the corpus of texts as a product of a variety
of social structures and practices that exist in this specific institutional context, as well as
within academia more broadly. This final phase of analysis will always be incomplete, as
it is difficult to isolate every social influence on a corpus of texts. However, by highlight-
ing a few of the social structures and practices which shape these texts, we hope to move
the conversation beyond ‘blaming individual faculty members’ and towards the design of
better systems which may yield more productive reflections about diversity, equity, and
inclusion.

Background

DEI in Faculty Hiring and Evaluation

In recent years, institutions of higher education have begun to expand their DEI efforts to
include the professoriate by integrating DEI statements in faculty hiring and annual evalu-
ations. There is a growing consensus that DEI initiatives are critical for fostering inclu-
sive excellence and, as such, DEI statements are used as a tool for institutions to explicitly
assess and promote faculty engagement with diversity-related activities, such as inclusive
teaching practices, mentorship of underrepresented students, and contributions to DEI ini-
tiatives. DEI statements are short texts, written by prospective or current faculty members,
which explain their philosophies and commitments regarding improving education for stu-
dents from marginalized backgrounds (Soucek, 2022a). Typically, department-based hir-
ing committees request DEI statements (among other documents) from prospective faculty
members to evaluate their fit and potential contributions within the department (Bloom,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 4 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Curran, & Brint, 2020; Cossgriff-Hernandez et al., 2023; Sylvester et al., 2019). In other
cases, department heads or college-level deans or equity officers request DEI statements
from existing faculty members to assess the current ‘state of affairs’ related to the fac-
ulty’s and department’s own actions for promoting DEI (Paul & Maranto, 2023; Russo-
Tait, 2022). A recent study by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
explored current tenure practices in 271 four-year institutions in higher education in the
U.S. and found that 21.5% of those institutions already had tenure standards in place that
included DEI criteria––and 49.9% reported that they were considering the practice (Tiede,
2022). However, it was unclear if these criteria were also included in yearly evaluations,
and the study did not document what type of DEI criteria or how it was reported in the ten-
ure practices. That said, tenure practices often entail asking faculty to assemble a dossier/
portfolio that includes statements discussing their contributions towards research, teaching,
and service––therefore DEI criteria might have been embedded in one or all of those con-
tributions (Soucek, 2022a, 2022b) or as a separate statement.
The information contained within these statements can be used to make structural
changes within the department and provide space for individual faculty to reflect on their
own teaching, mentoring, and research practices. Although DEI statements are inconsist-
ently used across STEM disciplines, they are growing in popularity as a strategy for assess-
ing and improving post-secondary STEM education (Paul & Maranto, 2023).
We focus our analysis on DEI statements written by existing faculty for two reasons:
First, these documents are required. Therefore, we can gather a better understanding of per-
spectives on diversity, equity, and inclusion from a range of faculty members; rather than,
just those individuals who elect to attend trainings in Centers for Teaching and Learning or
work within Diversity Offices. Second, existing faculty are currently practicing instructors
and researchers, rather than people applying to work at an institution. We believe existing
faculty DEI statements might be different than individuals applying to be faculty members.
While we are uncertain about what these differences may be, we imagine existing faculty
members’ DEI statements might be more honest or specific—considering these individuals
are already hired by the institution. In the next section, we explain our theoretical frame-
work which helps us further conceptualize DEI statements, the meanings they hold, and the
sources of these meanings.

Critical Approaches for Understanding DEI Statements

To examine faculty diversity statements, we draw on objectives, theories, and analyti-

cal techniques from critical discourse studies (CDS; Fairclough, 2003; Wodak & Meyer,
2009). CDS is a tradition, within the broader field of discourse studies (DS; Jaworski &
Coupland, 2014), which examines language to understand broader social problems which
involve struggles for power. In the sections ahead, we elaborate on the objectives and theo-
retical frameworks underlying CDS and draw connections to the present study.

Objective of Critical Discourse Analysis

CDS scholars examine a variety data sources and work in a multitude of contexts such
as film media (van Leeuwen, 1991), presidential speeches (Douifi, 2018), or advertise-
ments (Fairclough, 1993). Despite the diversity in subject matter, CDS researchers share
a common objective: to examine how language is used to construct (multiple) social reali-
ties (van Leeuwen, 1993). Three points about this objective are worth highlighting: First,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 5 of 39 6

CDS scholars investigate how language is used. That is, they are concerned with language
that occurs ‘naturally’ in social settings. They take as their analytical foci both naturally
occurring language and the social contexts in which it is used. Second, CDS scholars are
interested in language as one tool for constructing social reality. By constructing social
reality, we are referring to critical philosophies which understand that reality cannot be
objectively known, but rather, is subjectively represented (Bhaskar, 1986; Sayer, 1997,
2000). CDS scholars aim to deconstruct talk or text to understand how language is used to
represent social reality. Finally, CDS scholars do not consider all representations of reality
to be equal. Rather, there are multiple representations of the same social reality (Eagleton,
1991; Van Dijk, 1998). Some representations reinforce broader power relations in society
whereas other representations critique power relations in society. Our research shares in
this central objective: We collect and analyze naturally occurring language in the form of
statements, written by STEM faculty members, about their contributions to diversity. We
examine these statements to understand the multiple social realities that circulate amongst
STEM faculty related to social identity, the nature of STEM, and equity issues within
STEM. Our stance is explicitly critical, in that we show how certain representations uphold
the status quo in STEM, whereas others work to critique and reimagine social relations
within STEM.

Theoretical Framework for Critical Discourse Analysis

CDS scholars conceive of society as three interrelated levels: social events, social prac-
tices, and social structures. Like other models of the social world, such as Bronfenbren-
ner’s ecological model (1994), CDS scholars understand these levels to be interconnected
and often difficult to separate. While each level is comprised of many elements (e.g., peo-
ple, roles, materials, actions, and interactions), CDS scholars focus primarily on the lin-
guistic elements (Fig. 1).
At the ‘bottom’ of the hierarchy are social events. Social events are any concrete and
mutable happenings in the world which involve people, materials, actions, and interactions.
The linguistic elements in social event are texts—any instances of spoken or written lan-
guage. In the ‘middle’ of the hierarchy are social practices. Social practices are patterned

Fig. 1  Theoretical framing of text and society (Fairclough, 2003)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 6 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

ways of acting or interacting, relating to people, using materials, and using language. Like
social events, social practices have many linguistic elements. We focus on one such ele-
ment known as discourses. Discourses are patterned ways of representing the world with
language. At the ‘top’ of the hierarchy are social structures. Social structures are abstract
and stable entities which govern people’s day to day lives, such as economic structures,
kinship structures, or social institutions. In our work, we focus on one linguistic element
of the social structure known as ideologies. Ideologies are the “mental frameworks” which
people use “to make sense of, define, figure out, and render intelligible the way society
works” (Hall, 1996, p. 26). We focus on ideologies for two reasons. First, they are more
flexible than other linguistic elements such as languages or curricula (Philip, 2011; Philip
et al., 2018). People can draw on various ideologies at different points in time to understand
social reality. Second, ideologies reveal broader power dynamics within a social system
(Hall, 1996; van Dijk, 1998). Some ideologies support the status quo (and are dominant)
whereas other ideologies critique the status quo (and are alternative). Focusing on the ide-
ologies provides a window into the power dynamics which reproduced/shape in daily life.
The goal for a CDS scholar is to draw connections between social events, social prac-
tices, and social structures by analyzing the linguistic element at each level (i.e., texts, dis-
courses, and ideologies). To do this, scholars look for patterns at each level of the system
which they are analyzing. In our own research, we engage in a similar tripartite way of
understanding the social world. The updated figure summarizes our theoretical and empiri-
cal context (Fig. 2).
The social event we focused on took place in a College of Sciences at a large, R1 univer-
sity, in the U.S. Southwest. The College of Sciences required all currently employed faculty
members to write a short statement to summarize their contributions to diversity as part of
their faculty yearly reports. This social event is an example of a particular social practice
known as ‘self-reporting’. Self-reporting is any writing exercise where a faculty member
reflects on their teaching and research practices in a short autobiographical and narrative
style essay. This social event and social practice occur within a variety of social structures
in STEM higher education. Most near to the situation are the university social structures
involved in the handling evaluation and promotion of faculty. At perhaps a higher altitude
are funding institutions that require faculty to reflect on DEI issues (National Academies

Fig. 2  Theoretical and empirical context of our study (modified from Fairclough, 2003)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 7 of 39 6

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2016; 2023) and the broader cultural
norms for discussing these issues within the U.S. It is our goal to read this corpus of 22
diversity statements, understand their variability, and make connections ‘upward’ to the
broader social practices and social structures in which they are contained.

Methods

Context, Participants, and Data Collection

Our study is part of a broader qualitative case study (Yin, 2013), conducted by the sec-
ond author, which took place in a College of Sciences (CS) at a research-intensive histori-
cally white institution (HWI) in the Southwestern United States (Russo-Tait, 2022; 2023).
We begin by explaining the purpose and design of the broader qualitative case study, then
explain the situation which led to this more specific critical discourse analysis.
The purpose of the broader case study was to investigate STEM faculty’s concep-
tions of equity and teaching practices within the CS. The case study focused on STEM
faculty specifically, because the researcher is embedded in that ecosystem and recognizes
social construction of STEM as exceptional, apolitical and objective, which the researcher
hypothesized could inform faculty conceptions of equity. To explore the CS fully, the sec-
ond author selected two science disciplines—life sciences (LS) and quantitative sciences
(QS)—to compare. These disciplines were chosen because of their disciplinary cultural
differences (Lund & Stains, 2015; Reinholz et al., 2019) and because they represent the
‘poles’ of racial and gender parity amongst student enrolment (McFarland et al., 2018).
That is, the life sciences had the highest racial and gender representation for undergraduate
student majors (33% people of color, and 63% women) and the quantitative sciences had
one of the lowest racial and gender parity of the college (20% of each group). A total of 45
participants were recruited from the CS: 26 from the LS disciplines and 19 from the QS
disciplines.
A variety of data sources were collected in the broader case study, including demo-
graphic surveys, semi-structured interviews with individual faculty members, and arti-
facts offered by faculty members (i.e., teaching statements, course materials, etc.). During
the interview, the second author asked participants to discuss: (a) how they felt about the
requirement to write about their ‘contributions to diversity’ statement; (b) how these state-
ments were used by administration; and (c) if they were willing to share these with the
second author. These statements were unique for three reasons. First, rather than focusing
on all three elements of DEI the instructions asked faculty to report on their contributions
to diversity and climate. Second, unlike traditional DEI statements, these statements were
required of already-hired faculty members. And finally, when discussing the purpose of
these statements, regardless of their personal beliefs about their value, multiple participants
referred to them as “window-dressings”: statements with only an aesthetic purpose and are
of no consequence to their jobs. Through semi-structured interviews with the faculty mem-
bers, the second author learned that these diversity statements were written as a response to
a series of prompts completed by faculty as part yearly report (including research outputs,
classes taught, service contributions). These yearly reports were understood to be part of
the process that determined annual merit raises (though it was unclear if they applied to
promotions).

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 8 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

With these insights in mind, we decided to perform a closer analysis on the faculty
diversity statements, as well as the contextual information we gleaned from semi-structured
interviews with faculty members regarding how these diversity statements were requested,
collected, reviewed, and used. The second author asked all participants if they would be
willing to share these diversity statements. 12 of the 26 LS faculty (46%) and 10 of the
19 QS faculty (53%) agreed to share the diversity statements. Since faculty self-selected
to share these statements, there is an issue of sampling bias. But we argue that bias would
lean towards faculty who felt fairly comfortable sharing their documented contributions,
and not ones who may have considered social desirability issues. With these 22 statements
in hand, we set out to analytically map the relationship between faculty diversity state-
ments and the multiple social contexts in which the statements were produced.

Data Analysis

To analyze the texts, we infused Janks’ approach to critical discourse analysis (1997) with
CDA techniques from Sherard and Azevedo (2023) (Fig. 3). Janks’ approach provided us
with a process for working with texts. As we described in the introduction, Janks recom-
mends performing critical discourse analyses in three phases: description, interpretation,
and explanation. To guide these three phases, Sherard and Azevedo (2023) provide us with
a set of analytical tools for working with texts. Specifically, Sherard and Azevedo’s toolkit
includes a hybrid of framing analysis techniques from Entman (2007; for describing texts
at the level of sentences) and sociosemantic inventory from van Leeuwen (1993, 1996; for
describing texts at the level of word choice and order). Together, Janks (1997) and Sherard
and Azevedo (2023) provide a process and toolkit for analyzing large amounts of texts,
towards our goal of interpreting and explaining the corpus of texts.
In the first phase of analysis, we described each faculty diversity statement along three
dimensions: form, length, and frame (Figs. 3, 1a–c). Form refers to the structure of each
diversity statement. That is, whether the diversity statement was written as a short state-
ment (a single paragraph), a bulleted list, a multi-paragraph essay, a multi-paragraph essay
with section headers, or a mixture of forms. Length refers to the word count for each diver-
sity statement. Frame refers to the way an author constructs an argument in their writing.
To understand each statements’ frame(s), we performed framing analysis (FA; Entman,
2007; Sherard & Azevedo, 2023). We read each diversity statement line-by-line and coded
at the sentence level for one of four framing elements: problem definitions, causal analy-
ses, remedy promotions, and moral judgements. Problem definitions are any social issues
included in a text, causal analyses are any efforts to name the origin of a problem, remedy
promotions are any solutions provided for a problem, and moral judgements are any evalu-
ation of the problem. While the term ‘causal analyses’ may seem similar to ‘causality’ (as
used by scientists and social scientists), Entman uses ‘causal analysis’ to point out ways in
which speakers or writers attribute events as being ‘causes’ and ‘effects’. Framing analysis
does not intend to verify or validate the causal analyses that people make in speech, but
rather aims to characterize and describe the patterns in causality. The descriptive phase
allowed us to see the variability in how authors discussed DEI issues in STEM higher
education.
In our second phase of analysis, we interpreted the entire corpus of diversity statements
(Figs. 3, 2a–c). Our interpretation sought to identify broader discourses for discussing DEI
issues in STEM higher education. To do this, we reviewed the results from framing anal-
ysis and developed patterns from the coded data. We looked for various ways in which

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 9 of 39 6

Fig. 3  Schematic detailing our three phase analysis procedure which draws on processes and techniques
from Janks (1997) and Sherard and Azevedo (2023)

authors could define problems, relate causes, promote remedies, and make moral judge-
ments. Many sentences coded as ‘moral judgements’ were vague; therefore, we exclude
moral judgements in our second phase of analysis. One pattern we developed to describe
the variety of problems, causes, and remedies was called ‘location’. Location refers to the
space or origin of a particular problem, cause, or remedy. We created three categories for
describing location: intrapersonal (within the minds or behaviors of individual people),
interpersonal (within the interactions between groups); and systemic (within the functions
of social structures). While we created this to make sense of our data, we believe it coheres
with others who have conceptualized the social world in terms of ‘layers’ of expanding
scope (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
To further describe the developing patterns, we performed sociosemantic analysis
(SSA; Sherard & Azevedo, 2023; van Leeuwen, 1993, 1996). SSA allows researchers
to understand how an author of a text represents social actors (i.e., people from the real
world). To perform SSA, we read through each sentence identified from FA and identified

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 10 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

any nouns (i.e., people, groups, organizations, etc.) used in the sentence. With these nouns
in hand, we then asked probing questions to further understand how they are represented.
For example: who is included or excluded? Are these specific people in the real world or
general groups of people? What actions do different people perform? These probing ques-
tions allowed for deeper insights into the ways in which authors represent people from real
world in text format.
In the final phase of analysis, we explained the variation across the broader corpus of
diversity statements. This phase was interpretive in nature: we explain the texts and dis-
courses by cross-referencing with notes about the social event (the CS requiring diversity
statements from faculty members), the social practice (self-reporting), and the various
social structures which govern this event/practice (promotion policies, social ideologies).
Throughout the analysis, the authors discussed and debated the coding schemes (e.g.,
framing analysis and sociosemantic inventory), conclusions, and design take-aways. These
disagreements stemmed from different familiarities with the methods and data. For exam-
ple, the first author is experienced in critical discourse analysis, developed the hybrid
method for analyzing the text, and has taught others how to perform critical discourse anal-
ysis. The second author was far more familiar with the corpus of data, the local context
of the study, and broader context of STEM higher education, having collected the data
themselves and presently working in STEM higher education. Furthermore, these strengths
and weaknesses were compounded by the different social backgrounds of the authors (see
positionality statements below). In total, the analysis process was rife with moments of
divergence and convergence, but always ended with agreement. Characterizing this pro-
cess with figures such as ‘interrater reliability’ is insufficient. Instead, we provide as much
data as possible throughout our findings to guide the reader. Our approach to reflexivity is
informed by qualitative and critical scholars who acknowledge that knowledge is socially
constructed—and therefore imbued with the social positions and interests of the knowl-
edge-constructors (see Fairclough, 2003, Chapter 1, section ‘Critical Analysis and ‘objec-
tivity’’). We acknowledge that there may be other interpretations, rooted in individuals’
social positions, that could be gleaned from this data. We welcome these interpretations
and explain our own social positionings in the next section.

Positionality of the Authors

The first author, MS, identifies as a second generation-to-college, middle class, currently
able-bodied, White, cisgender, and Gay/Queer man. He was raised in the rural Southeast-
ern United States in a town that was characterized by a shrinking middle class, widening
wealth gap, severe degrees of racial segregation, and traditional gender/sexuality norms.
Color-evasive racial ideologies (Annamma et al., 2017); Bonilla-Silva, 2014) and social
mores of being ‘non-confrontational’ worked to obfuscate critical clarity about his social
reality. It was through the (protracted and continuous) processes of leaving his hometown,
coming out as a Gay man, and becoming a middle school teacher, that he was able to recon
with the serious killing fields of inequity (Therborn, 2013). For these reasons, MS feels
devoted to helping others disentangle themselves from color-evasive and neoliberal dis-
courses which promote ‘business as usual’.
The second author, TRT, identifies as a first generation-to-college, multiracial light-
skinned Latiné immigrant, and cisgendender heterosexual woman. Her proximity to white-
ness in Brazil’s so-called “racial democracy” (Hasenbalg & Huntington, 1982) during
her formative years led her to hold color-evasive beliefs that kept her from recognizing

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 11 of 39 6

systemic racism. Her experiences in and out of the STEM pathway in the US at the inter-
section of xenophobia, racism, and sexism, as well as bearing witness to the exclusionary
experiences of Black and Latinx students in STEM, motivated her to engage in justice-
oriented research. Her concerns for conducting this study in particular are motivated by the
need to identify and dismantle systemic barriers in STEM education, so that the field can
move away from implicit exclusionary and dehumanizing logics and become a space where
students from marginalized backgrounds can succeed in reaching their goals.
As mentioned in the section above, the authors performed all phases of the data analy-
sis together. Some of the time, we worked synchronously by reviewing DEI statements
together, coding with the tools from FA and SSA, and engaging in interpretation. Other
times, we worked independently, then met to compare notes and resolve differences.
Throughout the process, we discussed our lives (in/out of academia), our social identi-
ties, and the goals we have for writing such a paper. We believe that leveraging our criti-
cal lived experiences in this way, as well as our PhD training in education and social
sciences allowed us to come to this project from a place of both criticality and empa-
thy, which enriched the analysis.

Findings

We report our findings in three sections: First, we describe the corpus of faculty diversity
statements. Here, we treat each faculty diversity statement as an individual case (n = 22).
Second, we interpret the corpus of faculty statements. Here, we treat the entire corpus of
texts as a single case (n = 1). Our interpretation explores how issues of diversity can be
differently discussed. We outline three discourses about inequity in STEM and perform a
closer analysis with tools from sociosemantic inventory. Finally, we explain the corpus of
faculty statements. We contextualize the corpus of texts within the specific social event, the
social practice, and the broader social structures.

Part 1: Describing the Data Corpus

In this section, we describe our corpus of faculty diversity statements. First, we describe
the various lengths and forms (Table 1). Then, we provide a quantitative (Table 1) and
qualitative (Tables 2–4) description of the results from FA.

Length and Form

The 22 faculty diversity statements ranged significantly in terms of form and length. Over-
all, the shortest text was comprised of 51 words (QS-10) and the longest text was com-
prised of 2145 words (LS-10).
We classified four of the texts as ‘statement’ form. Statements were the shortest form of
texts. The shortest statement was comprised of 51 words (QS-10) and the longest statement
was comprised of 380 words (LS-3). We classified four of the texts as ‘list’ form. Lists
were also on the shorter side of length. The shortest list was comprised of 154 words (QS-
8) and the longest list was comprised of 215 words (QS-2). Because statements and lists
were shorter in length and possessed no little to no internal formatting or structure, they
tended to have the fewer meanings related to DEI.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 12 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Table 1  Description of the 22 Statement Form Length Framing Composition

faculty diversity statements;
including their form, length, and ID Format Word Count PD CA RP MJ
the composition of sentences
coded during framing analysis QS-1 Sectioned Essay 1392 0 1 25 4
QS-2 List 215 0 0 9 0
QS-3 Essay 376 0 0 7 3
QS-4 List 168 0 0 5 0
QS-5 Mixed 1702 5 0 42 7
QS-6 Essay 298 0 0 11 3
QS-7 Sectioned Essay 358 0 0 6 1
QS-8 List 154 0 0 4 0
QS-9 Sectioned Essay 1201 1 0 18 7
QS-10 Statement 51 0 0 2 0
LS-1 Sectioned Essay 1492 4 1 25 11
LS-2 Statement 170 0 0 6 2
LS-3 Statement 380 2 0 9 0
LS-4 Mixed 211 0 0 5 1
LS-5 Statement 96 0 0 2 0
LS-6 Essay 351 0 0 5 1
LS-7 Essay 703 5 0 9 3
LS-8 Mixed 967 0 0 3 0
LS-9 List 155 0 0 2 0
LS-10 Sectioned Essay 2145 6 0 30 4
LS-11 Sectioned Essay 510 2 2 6 0
LS-12 Essay 674 1 1 12 2

We classified five of the texts as ‘essay’ form. Essays were typically longer forms of
text. The shortest essay was comprised of 298 words (QS-6) and the longest essay was
comprised of 703 words (LS-7). Because essays were structured into multiple para-
graphs, it was easy to infer the thematic structure of each text. For example, a faculty
member might write a paragraph devoted to diversity efforts related to their teaching
and another paragraph devoted to diversity efforts related to their mentoring.
We classified six of the texts as ‘sectioned essay’ form. Sectioned essays were the
longest form of texts. The shortest sectioned essay was comprised of 358 words (QS-7)
and the longest sectioned essay was comprised of 2145 words (LS-10). Because sec-
tioned essays were doubly structured—into multiple paragraphs and multiple section
headers, it was easier to infer the thematic structure of each text. For example, a faculty
member might divide their essay into separate ‘teaching’ and ‘mentoring’ sections,
and then sub-divide each section into paragraphs which provide specific examples.
A few authors mixed form types when creating their diversity statement. We clas-
sified three of the texts as ‘mixed’ form. QS-5 was comprised of both an essay portion
and a list. LS-4 was comprised of both a statement and a list. LS-8 also was comprised
of both a statement and a list.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Research in Higher Education

Table 2  Examples of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic problem definitions

Type Statement Text

Intrapersonal Problem Definition LS-03 I require students to bring their laptops or tablets to their discussion sections to take online quizzes, and I do
(2025) 66:6

not permit the use of cell phones. However, I usually have one or a couple of students (out of ~ 300 stu-
dents) who do not have a permitted device. When this happened for the first time, I tried to find laptops
for rental on campus, but there was a limited number of supply, which others had checked out
Interpersonal Problem Definition LS-05 I intentionally selected qualified undergraduate teaching assistants and peer-led undergraduate studying
coordinators from various ethnic and educational backgrounds. Because I am an Asian instructor, many
Asian students seem to find me approachable and feel comfortable as we communicate. However,
I am careful not to endorse my or any particular ethnicity in or outside classroom within the university
setting
Systemic Problem Definition LS-01 Our students are diverse in so many ways: in their ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, in their
sexual orientation and gender identities, in their abilities of interpersonal expression, and in how they
take in and process information…However, diversity becomes a challenge in an education system not
designed to encourage student participation and student voices
Page 13 of 39
6

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 14 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Impressions from Framing Analysis

The 22 faculty diversity statements varied in their framing composition. Eight of the 22
texts contained at least one sentence which we coded as a problem definition, and the great-
est number of problem definitions within a single text was five (QS-5). Four of the 22 texts
contained at least one sentence which we coded as a causal analysis, and the greatest num-
ber of causal analyses within a single text was two (LS-11). Every text contained at least
two sentences which we coded as remedy promotions, and the greatest number of remedy
promotions in a single text was 42 (QS-5). Broadly speaking, faculty diversity statements
were primarily focused on remedies to issues related to diversity, rather than naming prob-
lems related to diversity, or discussing causes related to diversity problems.
We developed one theme to help us sort through the variation in how authors dis-
cussed problems, causes, and remedies: location. Location refers to where a problem,
cause, or remedy unfolds. We described three possible locations: First, they could be
located within individuals—inside the minds of social actors involved in STEM educa-
tion. We refer to these as intrapersonal problems, causes, or remedies. Second, they
could be located between individuals—in the social relationships that take place in
STEM education. We refer to these as interpersonal problems, causes, or remedies.
Third, they could be located within broader institutional practices or structures within
STEM education. We refer to these as systemic problems, causes, or remedies. Next, we
provide examples of each, using boldened words to add emphasis:
Problem definitions. Some faculty made efforts to name problems related to diver-
sity and climate, before discussing solutions. Of the 28 problem definitions, we classi-
fied ten as intrapersonal, two as interpersonal, and 18 as systemic. We provide examples
each type in Table 2:
Intrapersonal problem definitions are undesirable states, within an individual, which
(the author believes) needed to be solved. For example, the author of statement LS-03
reflected on the proportion of students who have or do not have laptops to bring to class
(Table 2). The bolded portion represents the sentence we coded as a problem defini-
tion. We described this problem definition as located ‘within the individual’ because it
describes an issue which is faced by an individual person (a student who does not have a
laptop) or within a type of individual (students who do not have laptops).
Interpersonal problem definitions are undesirable or harmful relationships between
two or more people. For example, the author of statement LS-05 reflected on reasons
why certain students were more or less comfortable interacting with him in the class
(Table 2). The author explained (in the bolded portion) that they believed that students
who shared an Asian ethnic identity were more likely to feel comfortable in their class.
We interpreted this as a problem, because the author seemed to indicate that students
who did to share his ethnic identity may feel less comfortable. We classified this prob-
lem as located ‘between individuals’ because it relates to the level of comfort two peo-
ple feel because of their social identity and interpersonal ties.
Systemic problems definitions are educational environments or institutions which
produced negative effects for individuals. For example, in LS-1, a faculty member
reflected on a systemic issue related to teaching undergraduate STEM courses (Table 2).
Again, the bolded portion represents the sentence we coded as a problem definition.
We described this problem definition as located ‘within the system’ because the fac-
ulty member explicitly names ‘education system’ as the location of the problem and
describes that this ‘system’ prefers similarity, and therefore, penalizes diversity.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 15 of 39 6

Causal Analyses. Faculty rarely focused on the causes of issues or problems related
to diversity. Only five sentences were coded as causal analyses across four texts. None
of the causal analyses were classified as intrapersonal causes, two were classified as
interpersonal and three were classified as systemic. In Table 3, we provide examples of
both types (Table 3).
Interpersonal causal analyses are undesirable relationships between people, which
lead to a problem. In QS-01, a faculty member reflected on what prevents some stu-
dents from enrolling as undergraduate teaching assistants (Table 3). We considered the
bolded section of the sentence to be the causal analysis. The author believed the prob-
lem (lack of diverse course staff) was caused by students not being encouraged. We
interpreted this as an interpersonal cause because someone must be responsible for the
act of ‘encouraging’ and someone must be the recipient of ‘encouragement.’ To further
our explanation, we can imagine hypothetical alternative causes to the problem (lack of
diverse course staff). For example, drawing on an intrapersonal cause, the author could
have stated that “some groups of students just don’t want to be teaching assistants.”
This framing would present the cause of the problem as existing within the individual’s
mind, rather than in the social relationships between people. Similarly, the author could
have drawn on a systemic cause by saying “because < insert STEM field > lacks diver-
sity, minoritized students are less likely to form relationships with professors, leading to
lower chances of volunteering to be teaching assistants.” This framing would present the
cause of the problem as existing within the discipline’s cultural practices.
At the other end of our spectrum, some faculty members located the causes of diver-
sity problems exclusively within broader social systems. For example, in LS-11, a fac-
ulty member reflected on scholars from nations around the world who were prevented
from conducting scholarly work because of fascist regimes: In this sentence, we inter-
preted the phrase “scholars who cannot continue their work in their home country” to be
the problem, which is caused by “actions of totalitarian regimes.” Therefore, we inter-
preted this cause to be located within broader social structures of a nation. In field notes
from discussions with the author of this sentence, they believed that in the U.S., the
only DEI problem is class inequality and that racism was a thing of the past. So, while
we believe reflecting on systemic issues causing DEI issues is necessary, we notice that

Table 3  Examples of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic causal analyses

Type Statement Text

Intrapersonal Causal Analysis n/a n/a

Interpersonal Causal Analysis QS-01 I have found that without that
encouragement, many of them
will self-select out of the role,
which limits our available pool
of TAs and makes it difficult to
create a diverse course staff
Systemic Causal Analysis LS-11 These activities will expose stu-
dents and faculty to the diverse
experiences of scholars who can-
not continue their work in their
home country because of the
actions of totalitarian regimes

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 16 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

it can also serve the purpose of distancing oneself (or, absolving oneself) from having to
address DEI issues (Dancy and Horati, 2023).
Remedy Promotions. Faculty spent the largest amount of space highlighting remedies
to solve diversity problems. 223 sentences were coded as remedy promotions across all 22
texts. 26 of the remedies were generic, meaning they did not specify a particular action that
would solve an issue. Of the remaining 197 remedies, we classified 15 as intrapersonal, 162
as interpersonal, and 14 as systemic. In Table 4, we provide examples of each (Table 4).
Intrapersonal remedies are solutions which involved individual people changing some-
thing about their mindset, attitude, or personal possessions. In some instances, faculty
members identified their own lack of knowledge to be a problem. For example, the author
of statement QS-02 listed that they “attended trainings” to learn about inclusive teaching
(Table 3). We described this remedy as located ‘within the individual’ because it pertains
to the person changing their own mindset. Interpersonal remedies are new social relations
that should exist which could ameliorate issues related to diversity. For example, one fac-
ulty member reflected on how they treated students in their classes (QS-04). We described
this remedy promotion as located ‘between individuals’ because it understands that men-
toring relationships as a solution to problems related to diversity in STEM. Systemic rem-
edies are new institutions which could create more equitable relationships amongst people.
For example, the author of statement QS-09 described their efforts to network non-prof-
its in the area. We described this remedy promotion as located ‘within systems’ because
it involves the modification of existing institutions towards solving a problem in STEM
education.

Part 2: Interpreting the Data Corpus

In this section, we present three discourses which we developed from our data. We organ-
ized these discourses around the location of problems related to inequity in STEM edu-
cation. We named these discourses: (a) the intrapersonal discourse; (b) the interpersonal
discourse; and (c) the systemic discourse. In explaining each discourse, we draw on tools
from sociosemantic analysis to describe the social actors included and the social actions
performed (by who, and towards who). Figure 4 explains the themes within each of the dis-
courses, so the reader may navigate to any particular discourse and theme at will.

Discourse 1: The Intrapersonal Discourse

The intrapersonal discourse frames educational inequities as problems that exist within
individuals. When problems are located within individuals, the responsibility for solving
these problems (i.e., providing remedies) can be given to the individual themselves, the
people they interact with, or the broader systems in which they are living. We identified
three types of intrapersonal problems: (a) material problems; (b) behavioral problems; and
(c) knowledge problems:
Material Problems. The first intrapersonal discourse about equity issues in STEM were
material problems. Material problems are when individuals lack a specific resource or tech-
nology to be participate in STEM education. There was only one example of this problem
presented in the data. The author of statement LS-03 began by discussing a problem they
noticed in their large lecture hall:
I require students to bring their laptops or tablets to their discussion sections to
take online quizzes, and I do not permit the use of cell phones. However, I usually

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Research in Higher Education

Table 4  Examples of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic remedy promotions

Type Statement Text
(2025) 66:6

Intrapersonal Remedy Promotion QS-02 [I] attended a half-day inclusive teaching and learning symposium to learn how to create a more inclusive
classroom
Interpersonal Remedy Promotion QS-04 I also welcome opportunities to reach out to minority students in QS, and providing mentoring and encour-
agement when possible. As an example, this year I had lunch three times with members of [women in
QS] as a way of getting to know some of the young women in QS
Systemic Remedy Promotion QS-09 I helped foster a connection between [women in QS] and [another women in QS organization], a local non-
profit that develops programs to attract and support high school girls with an interest in QS. [These orgs]
hosted a tour of the [university’s QS department] female high school students. The highlight of the tour
was a panel of women undergraduate students discussing their experiences
Page 17 of 39
6

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 18 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Fig. 4  Summary of the three discourses around diversity, equity, and inclusion STEM issues and their sub
themes

have one or a couple of students (out of ~300 students) who do not have a permitted
device.
The author provided two interpersonal remedies to this problem: First, the author
explained that they “let one of the students use my tablet during the semester.” Second,
they “have made quiz accommodations available for students in these situations and have
become more sensitive to respond to students’ circumstances that could hinder their learn-
ing without intervention.”
Using tools from sociosemantic analysis, we can decompose the problem and remedies
further: This problem involves two social actors: the instructor and students. In this state-
ment, the instructor is a specific social actor. That is, the author referred to themselves
as an instructor, rather than to ‘instructors’ as a general classification of people in higher
education. Students, on the other hand, are generic social actors. The author referred to stu-
dents as any individuals who attend their class. Furthermore, the author focused on a sub-
set of this generic group, which we describe as ‘students-without-laptops’. We believe that
representing the instructor as a specific social actor is meaningful: it frames the problem
from a first-person perspective. That is, the author observes this problem in their classroom
each semester. Furthermore, we believe that representing students as generic social actors,
and students-without-laptops as a sub-set of this generic group, is important. It frames the
problem (students not having laptops) as a random event, rather than a structural inequity
in higher education.
There are a variety of social actions within this problem and associated remedies: The
instructor is repeatedly activated (do-er of the actions) whereas the students are repeat-
edly passivated (receivers of the actions). The instructor ‘requires’ laptops and students
either ‘have’ or ‘do not have’ a laptop. The instructor offers a few actions to remedy

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 19 of 39 6

these problems: First, the instructor ‘let a student use’ their tablet. We interpreted this
as a shorter-term remedy to because it involved a specific student. Second, the instructor
‘makes available’ quiz accommodations for students. Third, the instructor ‘has become’
more sensitive to students’ needs. We interpreted the second and third actions as longer-
term remedies because they involved generic students. By activating the instructor and pas-
sivating the students-without-laptops, this problem and its’ associated remedies are fur-
ther crafted to be a one-off-issue that only takes place sometimes in the author/instructor’s
classroom. Furthermore, who this problem effects seems to be random and not related to
any particular sub-set of students (for example, low-income students, first-generation col-
lege students, etc.).
Behavioral Problems. The second intrapersonal discourse about equity issues in STEM
were behavioral problems. Behavioral problems are when individuals do not act in a way
that is beneficial for their success in STEM. There were two examples of this problem pre-
sented in the data (QS-01; LS-01). The author of statement QS-01 described a behavio-
ral problem they noticed when trying to recruit a more diverse cohort of undergraduate
teaching assistants: “I have found that without encouragement, many [women and under-
represented minorities] will self-select out of the role, which limits our available TAs and
makes it difficult to create a diverse course staff.” To remedy this, the author explained that
“I always encourage women and other underrepresented minorities to apply.” The author
of statement LS-01 noticed that students often do not participate in class. They said: “If
students don’t trust each other or me, they won’t speak up and share their perspectives and
experiences.” To try and earn students’ trust, the author provided two remedies: First, the
author “converted my somewhat standard syllabus into a graphic-intensive syllabus writ-
ten in informal, warm, and inviting tone, underscoring the approachability of the teaching
team.” We interpreted this as an interpersonal remedy, as it involves the modification of a
communication device (i.e., the syllabus). This remedy seems to rest on an assumption that
the opposite of a “graphic-intensive syllabus written in an informal, warm, and inviting
tone” is a text-intensive syllabus, written in a formal, cold, and uninviting tone. From our
perspective, this seems to be a welcome remedy, but it seems to rest on an assumption that
students struggle with technical texts. Second, the author described how they “intention-
ally use community building strategies to establish trust between the students and me.” We
interpreted this as an interpersonal remedy, as it involved the design of teaching strategies
which further social connections in the classroom.
Using sociosemantic analysis, we see two social actors represented in both behavioral
problems: instructors and students. Similar to material problems, instructors are repre-
sented as specific social actors (i.e., the author representing themselves) and students are
represented as generic social actors. However, the author of statement LS-01 goes a step
further by defining a sub-set of students by their gender and racial/ethnic identity: students
who are women and students who are underrepresented minorities. Similar to the material
problem, representing instructors as a specific social actor creates a first-person perspec-
tive (i.e., instructors witness this problem in their classrooms). While LS-01 represented
students as generic social actors with no sub-sets, QS-01 represented the sub-set by gen-
der and race. We believe that representing students in this manner is important, because it
acknowledges that the social identities of gender (specifically Women) and race/ethnicity
(specifically, underrepresented races or ethnicities) are in some way connected to the prob-
lem. However, this connection is not explored further in the text.
The actions that are represented in these two examples are also revealing. Like the mate-
rial problem, the responsibility for solving these issues is located within the actions of
the instructor. Instructors are responsible for ‘encouraging’ women and underrepresented

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 20 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

minorities, ‘creating’ more approachable teaching materials (syllabus), and ‘using’ com-
munity building strategies. Students, Women students, and underrepresented minority stu-
dents are all passivated to the actions of the instructors. We believe that the activation of
the instructor and passivation of students work to naturalize the problems at hand. That
is, these representations make it seem inevitable that students will exhibit intrapersonal
behavioral problems.
Knowledge Problems. The third and final intrapersonal discourse about equity issues in
STEM were knowledge problems. Knowledge problems are when individuals lack required
knowledge to be successful in STEM education. Very few problem statements explic-
itly named “lacking knowledge” as a problem. Rather, authors provided remedies which
implied that “lacking knowledge” was a problem. The social actors who ‘lacked knowl-
edge’ were STEM instructors, K-12 students, and undergraduate STEM students.
In one statement, the author of the statement identified their own lack of knowledge as a
problem to be overcome. For example, the author of statement LS-01 explained the trouble
they had understanding issues of diversity and inclusion at the start of their career:
Defining diversity and inclusion in the classroom was a struggle for me. I would have
simply cited ways I accommodate students with disabilities, mentioned that I avoid
the use of red/green in my slides to accommodate students with color-blindness, and
made a prosaic statement about treating all students fairly.
To solve this problem, the author engaged in a range of interpersonal remedies. They
attended allyship workshops and inclusive teaching symposia, completed mental health
first aid certifications, and participated in a faculty ‘well-being in learning’ program. Some
authors provided interpersonal remedies which indicated that they lacked some essential
knowledge. For example, the author of statement QS-09 explained that they had “recently
undergone diversity and inclusion training at the department level” and the author of state-
ment LS-10 explained that they had “taken various online training courses to become aware
of possible unconscious biases.” In three statements, authors believed that other instruc-
tors lacked knowledge related to diversity, inclusion, and teaching practices. The authors of
statements QS-04, QS-05, and LS-01 all discussed providing lectures or training materials
for other faculty members to improve their knowledge about inclusive teaching and diver-
sity. We interpreted these remedies to be resolving an intrapersonal problem: some faculty
do not know about inclusive teaching, diversity, or unconscious bias.
More frequent in the data were remedies which indicated that students’ themselves
lacked some critical STEM knowledge to participate in or matriculate through STEM edu-
cation. Five authors provided remedies targeted at K-12 students: The authors of statements
QS-01, QS-02, and QS-09 all discussed designing a programming-oriented summer camp
to help Girls and Underrepresented Minorities learn how to program. The author of state-
ment LS-07 discussed designing and running a summer camp focused on neurology for
“children and teens in underrepresented minority groups.” The author of statement LS-12
discussed designing a hands-on outreach event that could be deployed in local schools but
did not specify if any students were target groups.
Two different authors provided remedies targeted at undergraduate STEM students in
their own classes or more broadly in the university context. The author of statement QS-06
discussed simplifying technical idioms (difficult STEM content) by providing real world
examples to students in their class. The author of statement LS-03 discussed providing
learning accommodations for students with hearing difficulties.
Like material problems and behavioral problems, knowledge problems involved two
social actors: instructors and students. Regarding the representation of instructors, while

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 21 of 39 6

the majority still centered first-person accounts we see some new representational strate-
gies. Instructors were represented as specific social actors (the author themselves) or as
generic social actors (other instructors). This indicates a shift in focus from instructors as
the source of remedies only, to instructors as the source of problems and remedies. We
interpret this shift as a positive development: indicative of a more critical reflection about
how faculty themselves are implicated in issues of DEI in STEM education. Regarding the
representation of students, we see many of the same representational strategies. Students
were divided into sub-groups by gender and race/ethnicity. Many authors discussed provid-
ing STEM-oriented camps/trainings for young Girls and/or Underrepresented Minorities.
However, there was no deeper discussion about why these groups might need extra instruc-
tion/extra content knowledge. We interpret this as further naturalizing that some groups
(Women and Underrepresented Minorities) lack content knowledge which would otherwise
allow them to be successful in STEM. All the acts of naturalization across the intrapersonal
discourse perpetuate deficit-oriented perspectives of marginalized students in education
(Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Patton Davis & Museus, 2023; Valencia, 1997).

Discourse 2: The Interpersonal Discourse

The interpersonal discourse frames educational inequities as problems that exist between
individuals. The interpersonal and intrapersonal discourses are highly similar. They focus
on inequities that take place over shorter time scales and amongst small groups of people.
However, the interpersonal discourse focuses on external, social, and interactional relation-
ships as problems, which may in turn, lead to the intrapersonal problems. We discuss three
types of interpersonal problem that we developed from the data: (a) discomfort in STEM
spaces; (b) lack of mentoring relationships; and (c) flawed selection or hiring processes.
Discomfort in STEM Spaces. The first interpersonal discourse about equity in STEM
was related to discomfort in STEM spaces. Students and instructors interact in a variety of
settings within STEM higher education. Most of these interactions take place in formal set-
tings, like the classroom or office hours. Some of these interactions take place in informal
settings, such as after-school clubs or summer camps, when instructors are tutoring stu-
dents or working together on projects. Regardless of the location, discomfort between stu-
dents and instructors was frequently cited as an interpersonal educational problem. When
we refer to discomfort, we are speaking specifically of how authors discussed emotional
or affective discomfort experienced between people when interacting. This discomfort is
not related to content in STEM subjects (e.g., a student feeling behind in classwork); but
rather discomfort with interpersonal relationships (e.g., a student feeling intimidated by a
professor). Discomfort between instructors and students could be discussed in one of two
ways: discomfort between instructors and all students; or discomfort between instructors
and specific sub-sets of students.
In the first case, authors discussed discomfort between themselves and all students.
Some authors focused on remedies outside of the classroom. For example, the author of
statement QS-01 reflected on their interactions with undergraduate staff in a summer com-
puter science camp:
I get to know camp staff, many of whom are either future QS majors or QS majors
that have just completed their freshman year…I hope to make them comfortable
around me so that they will be willing to come to ask questions or get guidance when
they take my class or encounter challenges on the road to their degree.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 22 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

We classified this sentence as a remedy. The author believed that if they get to know
students during this summer QS camp, then the students will feel more comfortable in
future QS classes. We interpret this remedy to be a response to the problem ‘students
feel uncomfortable around instructors.’
Some instructors offered remedies inside the classroom. For example, the author of
statement LS-01 discussed teaching strategies they used at the start of class:
I use the ‘Check in’ and ‘It Made Me Think’ prompt to begin and end each class.
These ritualized prompts allow students to participate in a personal way to build
classroom community. In a ‘Check In’, I go around the room inviting each student
to say a word or phrase that describes their state of mind as we begin class. Some
weeks, the most frequent response is ‘tired!’ or ‘stressed!’ but as the students nod
and giggle in solidarity, we are buoyed by the shared experience.
We classified this sentence as a remedy. The author believed that by beginning class
with affective-oriented check-in questions, students would feel more comfortable in
classrooms. We interpret this remedy as a response to the problem ‘students feel uncom-
fortable in class.’
In the second case, authors discussed discomfort between themselves and specific
sub-sets of students. That is, authors identified groups of students who may or may not
feel comfortable in STEM spaces. Only one author provided both a problem statement
and a remedy. The author of statement LS-03 explained on how students’ racial/ethnic
identity related to comfort/discomfort in STEM environments: “Because I am an Asian
instructor, many Asian students seem to find me approachable and feel comfortable as
we communicate.” We interpreted this sentence as an interpersonal problem: students
are “more or less comfortable” with professors depending on shared/different racial or
ethnic identity. To remedy this problem, the author explained that they are “careful not
to endorse my or any particular ethnicity in or outside classroom within the university
setting.” In other words, when the author teaches, they are careful not to value any one
racial or ethnic identity more than another.
Other authors provided remedies which insinuated that there were problems with
sub-sets of students feeling comfortable. For example, the author of statement LS-06
focused on how students’ sexual orientation related to comfort/discomfort in STEM:
I took a workshop to educate myself on issues faced by students in the LGBTQ+
community... [I] am the first and only faculty member [in department] to be listed
as an ally I have posted [allyship] placards on my office door so that students ...
can count on me for help and information for any issues they are encountering.
On my course syllabus I list my preferred pronouns to signal to students that I am
accepting individual and safe to communicate with about gender and sexuality.
This sentence provided a variety of remedies. The author educated themselves on
Queer issues, registered as an ally, posted placards on their door, and listed pronouns on
their syllabus. We interpreted each of these remedies to respond to the same problem:
Queer students experience discomfort in STEM space.
In two other instances, authors named a variety of social identities which may feel
uncomfortable in STEM spaces (i.e., rather than focusing on one social identity). The
author of statement LS-01 explained how they modify instructional materials to make
certain racial, sexual orientation, or gendered groups feel comfortable:

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 23 of 39 6

I’m mindful that students will feel they belong in a course or field of study if they see
examples of people they can relate to. I’m currently transitioning [curricula] to fea-
ture a wide variety of people of color, race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.
The author of statement QS-03 explained how they modified their office to make Queer
and Black students feel more comfortable:
I always strive to make my classroom and my office a welcome and inclusive envi-
ronment for everyone. Anyone entering my office will see three stickers outside my
door: a [QS message of belonging] sticker; a ‘Black Lives Matter’ sticker; and a rain-
bow flag ‘Justice’ sticker.
We interpreted both remedies to respond to the same interpersonal problem implied by
the authors: Racially minoritized students and Queer students do not feel comfortable in
STEM.
Using the tools of sociosemantic inventory, we can explore the problems and remedies
further. First, authors represented ’students’ as a social group in two different ways: In the
first set of examples we provided, the authors referred to students as a general group of
people. This represents the problem of discomfort as taking place randomly among all stu-
dents. Furthermore, it does not explore why certain students might feel uncomfortable in
STEM environments. In the second set of examples we provided, the authors referred to
sub-sets of students based on social identities of race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. For
example, authors explained that Black students, Queer students, or ‘some genders’ might
feel uncomfortable in STEM spaces, and therefore need certain treatments. This represents
the problem of discomfort as taking place amongst certain groups of students. The author
of statement LS-03 provided an explanation for this phenomenon: the match or mismatch
between instructor and student racial/ethnic identity can create comfort or discomfort.
However, the rest of the authors did not provide any reason for why these certain groups
might feel uncomfortable. We believe that this further naturalizes the notion that some
groups are inherently more uncomfortable in STEM spaces than others, as opposed to con-
sidering that exclusionary cultures may be the source of discomfort.
Second, the types of actions represented in these remedies are revealing. Many of the
authors activated themselves as the individual responsible for solving the discomfort.
Authors cited changing course materials, decorating doors, taking time to informally get
to know students, using surveys, and a host of other actions they could take to reduce stu-
dents’ discomfort. Students were primarily passivated—they were on the receiving end of
instructors’ actions. Furthermore, many of the actions which instructors took were inter-
personal—one-off decisions instructors could make by themselves rather than broader
systemic changes that can be made at the department or college level. We believe it is a
positive finding that so many instructors understand their classrooms and interactions with
students as cites for making students more comfortable. However, we also believe the lack
of explanation regarding the connection between social identity and discomfort, in tandem
with the over-emphasis on interpersonal remedies—is an important area of growth for fac-
ulty members’ understandings about inequity in STEM higher education, including their
role in addressing it.
Lack of Mentoring Relationships. The second interpersonal discourse on equity issues
in STEM was related to the lack of mentoring relationships. Mentoring relationships are a
core part of the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty experience in higher education. Some
argue that successful mentoring relationships are the most important practice for support-
ing people (e.g., undergraduate students, graduate students, or assistant professors) as they

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 24 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

move through the STEM pathway. By mentoring opportunities, we are referring instances
when people in academia work together, in an informal but hierarchical relationship, to
discuss issues related to success in STEM or develop skills, knowledge, and social and cul-
tural capital associated with STEM. Mentoring relationships figured centrally into authors’
discussions about how to make STEM education more diverse and occurred in one of two
ways. First, some discussions about mentoring focused specifically gender-based mentor-
ing. That is, mentoring between instructors/faculty and women undergraduates, graduates,
or faculty. Second, other discussions about mentoring focused on multiple identity groups,
rather than gender alone. We provide examples of each below.
Six authors, all from QS, discussed mentoring relationships with women (QS-01, 02,
04, 05, 07, and 09). These relationships occurred at the undergraduate, graduate, and fac-
ulty levels of the STEM pathway.
All six authors discussed mentoring relationships with women undergraduate students
in the QS department. These discussions centered around a program called the Women
in Quantitative Sciences (WIQS, a pseudonym) lunch series. The WIQS lunch series was
an informal gathering where QS faculty and Women undergraduate students would meet,
eat lunch, and discuss issues pertaining to perseverance in QS. The WIQS lunch series
was a space where faculty were activated in the mentoring relationship. For example, fac-
ulty “discussed careers, research, and more” (QS-02), had the opportunity to “interact with
small groups” (QS-07), and “help solve any problems [WIQS students] were having” (QS-
01). The WIQS lunch series was also a space for Women undergraduate students to be acti-
vated in the mentoring relationship. For example, the author of statement QS-09 explained:
Within my department, I collaborate regularly with the [Women in QS] student
organization to organize recurring lunches with female undergraduate students.
These lunches provide a valuable forum for informal mentoring. Students have an
opportunity to discuss and ask questions about industry and academic career paths.
They also learn about navigating coursework and research. I have recruited students
from this group for classes and research projects.
We coded all discussions about the women in QS lunch series as remedies. Further-
more, we understood these remedies to be responses to an implied problem: the lack of
mentoring relationships for Women undergraduate students.
While Women undergraduates were the most frequently discussed recipient of gender-
based mentoring, there were two authors who discussed mentoring for others in the STEM
pathway. The author of statement QS-02 discussed mentoring relationships with Women
graduate students in the QS department. In a bulleted list of their contributions to diversity
and climate, they listed “guest speaker at [Women in QS society seminar]” as one item.
We coded this remark as a remedy, and believed it was in response to an implied problem:
the lack of mentoring relationships for Women graduate students. The author of statement
QS-01 discussed mentoring relationships with Women faculty in the QS department:
I also work to support women who are serving as [QS] faculty. I do that through
my service on the [disciplinary conference] faculty committee, where I work with
others to review submissions to the [conference], including panels, talks, and [affin-
ity groups], and design from those submissions a selection of events that appeal to
female QS faculty from diverse backgrounds and environments.
In this quote, the author describes their service to a committee which supports the
development of new QS faculty in the field. We coded this paragraph as a series of

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 25 of 39 6

remedies, all related to the same implied intrapersonal problem: a lack of mentoring
relationships with Women faculty.
Five authors, four from QS and one from LS, discussed mentoring relationships
related to multiple identity groups, rather than gender alone. Some authors used broad
terms like “underrepresented minority” or “underprivileged” to capture a variety of
social identity groups which may require mentoring. For example, the author of state-
ment QS-07 explained how they participated in an organization to help mentor students
from “underprivileged or underrepresented institutions”:
[I served as] one of the two faculty organizers for the Student Research Workshop
(SRW) for the Conference of the North American Chapter of [discipline]. This is
a workshop explicitly designed to encourage submissions by first-time authors or
authors from underprivileged or underrepresented institutions. As part of the pro-
cess, students are assigned pre-submission mentors (faculty in the field) who help
them revise their submissions to improve their chances of acceptance.
As a second example, the author of statement QS-09 discussed their belief in mentor-
ing students from a variety of backgrounds:
To promote and retain a diverse research field, I believe it is important to reach
out to underrepresented minorities at various levels. My outreach starts within my
department, but continues within the community, and extends globally.
In both examples, the terms “underrepresented” and “underprivileged” are used to
capture a variety of (unnamed) social identities which need mentoring. We coded these
sentences as remedies and interpreted them to be responses to the implied problem:
there is a lack of mentoring relationships (forunderrepresented/underprivileged groups).
In other instances, authors would list strings of identity-related words when discuss-
ing mentoring opportunities that they participated in. For example, the author of state-
ment LS-12 explained how they provided mentoring opportunities for students who are
multiply marginalized by ethnicity and race:
I informally mentor several other female and LatinX graduate students from
[other] graduate programs... These students come to my weekly lab meetings for
research discussions and our inclusive community: my lab group has regular dis-
cussions about equity and inclusivity in STEM.
Similarly, the author of statement QS-03 discussed their efforts to mentor undergrad-
uate students who are marginalized by gender and sexuality:
For several years, I served as the faculty advisor for [organization], the [universi-
ty’s] student organization aiming to provide [the university’s] LGBTQ students in
STEM fields with resources to develop their professional skills as LGBTQ/STEM
students.
We coded both instances (mentoring Latiné and Female graduate students and men-
toring LGBTQ students) as remedies. Furthermore, we interpreted each remedy to be
responses to the implied problem: there is a lack of mentoring relationships.
To briefly summarize, mentoring was a frequently discussed remedy across the corpus
of statements. Although no author explicitly mentioned that “lack of mentoring relation-
ships” was a problem in STEM education, we believe the frequency with which mentoring
was offered as a solution, hints to this idea. Drawing on the tools of sociosemantic inven-
tory, we can scrutinize the discussions about mentoring further.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 26 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

We clustered the social actors involved in mentoring into two groups: mentors
and mentees. Mentors were the authors/faculty members themselves. Mentors typi-
cally appeared in the text with personal pronouns such as ‘I’ or ‘Me.’ There were no
instances, during discussions of mentoring, where the authors/mentees discussed their
own social identities and how they relate to mentoring. Mentees were primarily under-
graduate students, but in some cases were graduate students or other faculty. Mentees
were divided into sub-sets or groups. Most frequently were mentees identified by their
gender and position in the STEM pathway. For example, Women undergraduate QS
students, Women graduate students, and Women faculty. Less frequently were mentees
which were broadly classified as ‘underprivileged’ or ‘underrepresented’. We see these
sub-divisions in who receives mentoring as important. They indicate that authors under-
stand mentoring to be needed by some groups, more than others. However, it is left
unclear as to why certain groups need more mentoring over other groups.
Similar to the intrapersonal discourse, mentors were primarily activated, and men-
tees were primarily passivated. Mentors, the authors/faculty members themselves, were
the ‘doers’ of social action. Mentors provided guidance, answered questions, acted as
role models STEM, and met and ate lunch with mentees. Mentees were primarily the
‘receivers’ of social action. Mentees were guided, had their questions answered, learned
from mentors, and attended conferences with mentors. Also similar to the intrapersonal
discourse, there is no clear discussion among the corpus of statements as to why cer-
tain groups need mentoring actions over other groups. Furthermore, there are very few
instances where mentees are activated in changing the mentors. What might mentoring
as a remedy look like if mentees are able to shape the practices of mentors? How might
this change the dynamics of mentoring?
Selection or Hiring Processes. The third and final interpersonal discourse on equity
issues in STEM was related to selection or hiring processes. Faculty members are often
saddled with the responsibility of selecting or admitting individuals to support with
teaching and research. For example, instructors might hire undergraduate teaching assis-
tants or researchers might hire graduate student research assistants. Selection and hiring
processes were frequently discussed as an interpersonal problem in STEM education.
Specifically, authors appeared to believe that they needed to select or hire diverse stu-
dents (on the basis of gender or racial/ethnic identity) in order to contribute to diversity.
It may seem, on the surface, that this problem is systemic rather than interpersonal.
Selection and hiring processes typically involve systems: committees meeting to cre-
ate applications, conduct interviews, decide on selection criterion, and involve human
resource departments. However, each of the selection of hiring processes discussed in
the corpus were more informal in nature. They typically only involved a single author/
faculty member picking individuals from a group of applicants. Therefore, we treat
selection and hiring processes as an interpersonal problem.
Six authors, one from QS and five from LS, discussed inequitable selection and hir-
ing processes as an interpersonal problem to be solved in STEM education. No author
explicitly mentioned this in a sentence coded as a problem statement. Rather, they pro-
vided remedies which we believe insinuate the problem.
Two authors focused on selection and hiring processes related to teaching support.
Take for example, the author of statement QS-08. When discussing their efforts to select
undergraduate teaching assistants, they:

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 27 of 39 6

Made an effort to hire undergraduate teaching assistants from underrepresented

groups. Over half of my TAs during the year were from groups under-represented in
QS. (female, multi-racial
Similar to QS-08, the author of statement LS-03 explained that they “intentionally
selected qualified undergraduate teaching assistants and [peer-tutors] coordinators from
various ethnic and educational backgrounds.” We coded both sentences as remedies. Fur-
thermore, we interpret these remedies as responses to the broader problem: lack of diver-
sity in hiring.
Four authors focused on selection and hiring processes related to research support. The
author of statement LS-06 made an effort to “maintain a diverse environment in my labora-
tory” by “hiring and encouraging students from many backgrounds.” The author of state-
ment LS-10 “hired a woman of color in my lab” even though “she had very little experi-
ence with lab work.” The author of statement LS-07 “strived to recruit a diverse group of
researchers to my lab.” Finally, the author of statement LS-09 ensured “the recruitment
of women and members of under-represented minorities into my lab as undergraduate
researchers.”
None of the authors explained why recruiting and employing a diverse research staff
was necessary. Rather, each of the authors ‘proved’ their commitment diversity by listing
the social identities of the student researchers they have or are mentoring. For example, the
author off statement LS-06:
[I] hosted two PhD students for rotations in my laboratory. Both of these are minor-
ity students, one male and one female. As an undergraduate research mentor I have
directly supervised four students and co-supervised four others. Of these eight under-
graduates, seven are women and six are members of ethnic and religious minorities. I
employ one postdoctoral fellow, a woman, and have co-employed a total of five labo-
ratory technicians, four of whom have been women and one of whom is a member of
an ethnic minority.
As explained earlier, we interpreted authors’ efforts to hire more diverse research staff
as remedies. These remedies implicitly respond to the intrapersonal problem of ‘lack of
diversity in selection or hiring processes.’ Furthermore, rather than explaining why this is
a problem (or what the cause of the problem is), authors listed the social identities of the
hired individuals to prove their contribution to diversity.
Examining how authors discussed selection and hiring processes with the tools of
sociosemantic inventory reveals a crucial insight. In each of the above six examples, the
authors activated themselves as being responsible for valuing the diversity of candidates
when hiring. This insinuates that the problem (inequitable selection or hiring processes) is
caused by authors/faculty members themselves. This can be seen as a productive moment
of self-critique within the broader corpus of statements or, alternatively, since they did not
discuss the reason for the need of this remedy, their reflection could be situated on less
critical understanding of lack of diversity in the “pipeline” as opposed to a systemic exclu-
sion. In addition, there is still no attention given, in the text, to the actual benefits of hiring
a diverse research and teaching staff.

Discourse 3: The Systemic Discourse

The systemic discourse frames educational inequities as problems that exist within
social structures. The systemic discourse is the broadest, yet least frequently discussed,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 28 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

conception of educational inequity in our hierarchy of discourses. We discuss three types

of systemic problems that we developed from the data: (a) totalitarian governments restrict-
ing research activities; (b) inequitable hiring, promotion, or participation systems; and (c)
inequitable teaching systems.
Totalitarian Governments. The first example of a systemic discourse on equity issues in
STEM related to the actions of totalitarian governments. This systemic problem was only
discussed by the author of statement LS-11. The author discussed a problem and associ-
ated cause: there are scholars “who cannot continue their work in their home country” (the
problem) because of “the actions of totalitarian regions” (the cause). To remedy this prob-
lem, the author advocated for the university to join a “network to protect scholars and aca-
demic freedom in the global community” and discussed their role in the network to “host
these scholars and help them find a base from which to continue their work.”
We classified this entire example as systemic. The problem (restricted research activi-
ties), the cause (totalitarian regimes cause restricted research activities), and the remedy
(a network which hosts international researchers in the US) are all systemic. However, this
discussion was positioned alongside other examples which were interpersonal or intrap-
ersonal. For example, the author wrote one sentence which listed the number of women
researchers and “minority” researchers they have hosted in their lab. This seemed to indi-
cate that ‘hiring women and minority researchers ‘was a remedy to an implied problem
(possibly, the lack of women and minority researchers). The remedy and implied problem
are a rather flat rendering of an equity issue (hiring practices). We believe this demon-
strates that individual people can draw on a variety of discourses to understand issues of
equity. In one instance, authors can exhibit a deep understanding about the source of an
equity issue (totalitarian governments). In another instance, they can exhibit a rather shal-
low understanding about an equity issue (hiring practices). This speaks to the importance
of educating faculty to think beyond overt exclusion and oppression to the more nuanced
systemic issues that US students face.
Inequitable Hiring, Promotion, or Participation Systems. The second example of a sys-
temic discourse on equity issues in STEM related to the (inequitable) systems for hiring,
promoting, and fostering participation. Earlier, we discussed ‘inequitable selection and hir-
ing processes’ as a type of interpersonal problem. In that section, we focused on instances
where authors/faculty were personally involved in the process of selecting or hiring teach-
ing and research support. Now, we discuss ‘inequitable hiring, promotion, or participation
systems’ as a type of systemic problem. In this section, we focus on structural elements
of the university which are designed to hire new STEM faculty, promote existing STEM
faculty, or support STEM researchers’ ongoing participation in the broader academic field.
The difference lay within who is responsible for the problem. Inequitable selection and
hiring processes (the intrapersonal problem) was caused by individual faculty members
not valuing diversity. Inequitable hiring, promotion, or participation systems (the systemic
problem) is caused by systems designed to support some at the expense of others.
Two authors, one from LS and one from QS, discussed inequitable hiring, promotion, or
participation systems. The author of statement LS-12 discussed the importance of expos-
ing inequitable systems of participation in academia, whereby certain people are given
privileged opportunities because of their academic pedigree and history. To expose such
inequities, the author taught their graduate and undergraduate students about nepotism in
academia:
We discuss how students gain access to research experiences and how these expe-
riences may impact long-term educational outcomes, whether it’s increasing one’s

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 29 of 39 6

chances of getting into a top-tier school or contributing to the conception that one is
scientifically brilliant because of an early publication produced during high school.
They went on to provide an example of this system at work: “I purposefully chose a
paper wherein the high school authors are a relative of the senior author, who is a tenured
professor at an Ivy League institution.” Taken together, we can see the systemic problem
and systemic cause. The systemic problem is certain students (over others) gaining access
to high school research experiences. Furthermore, these early research experiences engen-
der long-term educational outcomes such as admittance into top-tier schools or and percep-
tions that the students are ‘scientifically brilliant’. The systemic cause is nepotism: people’s
familial relationships providing enormous benefits. The author did not provide a remedy
to this specific problem, but seemed to imply that talking about these inequities with their
graduate and undergraduate students was important for STEM education.
The author statement QS-05 discussed two related problems in STEM higher education
and industries: First, they explained an issue they witness in STEM spaces:
I have [seen] highly skilled female-identifying scientists and engineers be
exploited and discouraged repeatedly and systemically by academic and indus-
trial organizations that claim to be objective and merit-based.
Second, they empathized with the issue by explaining their own experience:
Despite having [several degrees] in QS from a [highly ranked] university, even I
have felt “left out” and been discouraged in my technical career on numerous
occasions, due largely to cultural norms rather than technical abilities.
We bolded the problems in each of these statements. The first problem (a general prob-
lem) is “highly skilled female-identifying” STEM professionals being exploited and feeling
discouraged (personally, and systemically) by STEM organizations. The second problem (a
personal problem) is that the author himself has “felt ‘left out’ and discouraged. Although
the link is not deeply explained, the author identified a cause: “due largely to cultural
norms rather than technical abilities.” We interpret this to mean that the author believes the
cultural norms of STEM are responsible for Women’s exploitation, and his own feelings of
being ‘left out.’
The author did not provide specific remedies to these problems and causes, but listed
a variety of actions they havetaken to improve their own understanding of equity issues
in STEM. First, during their time as a graduate student, they were “one of the few male-
identifying regular attendees of the Women in QS seminars.” Second, in their current role
as a junior faculty member, they have “often been a listening ear and advocate for women
in technical areas.” We coded each of these statements as remedies and interpret each to be
interpersonal remedies (related to relationships between people). We believe this highlights
that systemic problems require both systemic solutions but also interpersonal and intraper-
sonal solutions.
Drawing on the tools from sociosemantic analysis, we can see differences in how each
author relates the social actors to the problem at hand. In the first case about nepotism,
the author indicates that ‘people with familial relations to the academy’ receive gratuitous
benefits (e.g., being conceptualized as scientifically brilliant, earlier research opportuni-
ties, admittance into graduate school, promotion, etc.). Although it is not more deeply
explained, the author seems to insinuate that familial relationships cause certain people to
be privileged over others. In the second case about highly qualified women being exploited
in STEM, the author does not explain why it is women that are on the receiving end of

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 30 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

such exploitation. Furthermore, the author does not discuss the gendered identities of those
who are doing the exploiting. Rather, those individuals are excluded from discussion. We
interpret this as a lack of critical attention to the social actors (within systems) who cause
inequity.
Inequitable Teaching Systems. The third and final example of the systemic discourse
on equity issues in STEM was related to inequitable systems for teaching STEM students.
This systemic problem was only discussed by the author of statement LS-01. This might
seem contradictory at first. Most, if not all, of the diversity statements discussed teaching
practices that produce a more equitable learning experience. However, most of these dis-
cussions revolved around specific teaching practices, specific students, and personal expe-
riences. In this example, the author of statement LS-01 takes a broader perspective and
critiques the underlying logic of teaching in STEM higher education. We explain how her
argument unfolds:
In the beginning of her diversity statement, the author reflected on what she believed to
be true about students, teaching, and learning:
Our students are diverse in so many ways: in their ethnic, cultural, and socioeco-
nomic backgrounds, in their sexual orientation and gender identities, in their abilities
of interpersonal expression, and in how they take in and process information. They
are undoubtedly diverse in ways we have yet to categorize and cannot anticipate.
We did not code this statement as any of the framing elements. The author simply began
her argument with an axiomatic statement about the inherent diversity of students. In this
statement, she lists a variety of identities that are salient to the processes of teaching and
learning, but also, leaves room for other identities that she may not consider. Diversity is
certainly heralded as a strength, in these diversity statements and in STEM education more
broadly.
However, in the sentence that followed, she introduced a problem: “diversity becomes
a challenge in an education system not designed to encourage student participation and
student voices.” We interpret this sentence as the author identifying a systemic problem in
STEM higher education: the diversity of students is inherently at odds with an educational
system designed for uniformity and authority. This systemic problem is abstract and ideo-
logical. Furthermore, we believe that the author insinuates that the diversity of students is
inherently at odds with a system developed for producing homogeneity of results.
When focusing on remedies to this issue, the author began by making a broad moral
judgement and remedy: “Luckily, it is a challenge only in the sense that it is our job to
learn how to productively engage with difference.” Here, she framed the work of educa-
tion as being inherently tethered to understanding student social identities and differences.
Then, she provided two (somewhat more) specific remedies: “facilitating a classroom cli-
mate built on trust and providing space for student voices and experiences.” Drawing on
the tools of sociosemantic analysis, we can see one of the few instances where an author
fully connects social identity to the problem at hand. In this author’s argument, all social
identities yield diversity of experience (causal) which are then penalized in a system that
values homogeneity (a problem statement).

Part 3: Explaining the Data Corpus

In this final section, we explain some of the social forces—beyond the individual
mindset or attitude towards DEI—which shape this corpus of statements. This process

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 31 of 39 6

is imperfect, but a core aspect of what makes a discourse analysis critical. In structur-
ing our explanation, we reflected on aspects from Fairclough’s ‘social levels’ which
seemed to shape the forms and meanings amongst the corpus of diversity statements.
We divide our explanation into three sections: (1) explaining how the social event
influenced the texts; (2) explaining how the social practice influenced the texts; and
(3) explaining how the social structure influenced the texts. We understand that this
model is incomplete, but we believe these three elements of explanation are actionable.
Furthermore, we believe that faculty members (ourselves included) are deeply shaped
by the society we live in. Towards this end, we hope to move the conversation beyond
‘good and bad’ or ‘critical and uncritical’ faculty—and towards the design of social
systems make space for critical and honest reflection and action.

Explaining how the Social Event influenced the Corpus

These texts are part of a specific social event: the CS required faculty to write a short
statement, describing their contributions toward diversity and climate, to be appended
to their yearly reports. Furthermore, the diversity statements were part of a collection
of social events within the CS aimed at improving DEI: appointing a DEI administra-
tor, inviting DEI-oriented speakers, and providing funding for DEI projects.
The most salient aspect of the social event which we believe explained the varia-
tion in faculty statements was the prompt itself. The prompt asked faculty members
to “describe your contributions to diversity and climate.” [emphasis added]. First,
the prompt required faculty members to reflect on their own contributions to diversity
and climate. This might explain the prevalence of discussions about remedies to diver-
sity/climate and the dearth of discussions about diversity/climate problems and their
causes. If the goal of DEI statements is to improve STEM higher education for minor-
itized students, then DEI statements must promote critical reflection. As it stands, this
prompt focuses authors only on the solutions they have engaged in, rather than pro-
viding a deeper discussion about the many and complex problems that plague STEM
higher education. Second, the prompt required faculty members to focus only on diver-
sity and climate. This likely explains the lack of space devoted to fully conceptualizing
issues of equity and inclusion. For DEI statements to be successful, authors need time
to reflect on all aspects of the D-E-I acronym, not just ‘diversity’. However, given that
faculty members are not formally trained about DEI in general, let alone the nuances
between the different component of the DEI acronym, we recognize that adding the
terms ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’ to the prompt alone may not have changed the depth of
reflections.
Apart from the prompt itself, these statements were to be appended to yearly reports
which were used to evaluate individual faculty members. These evaluations would be
used to inform merit-based pay raises and promotions. We believe this venue deeply
shaped faculty’s reflection and writing. With such large stakes on-the-line, faculty were
likely not encouraged to engage in self-critique. Rather, they were encouraged to list
all the actions (i.e., remedies) they have personally taken to making positive changes in
STEM higher education. Therefore, the connection with a formal and non-anonymous
evaluation system likely shaped the forms and meanings within this corpus of texts.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 32 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Explaining How the Social Practice Influenced the Corpus

These texts are part of a broader social practice: self-reporting on DEI related activities.
Self-reporting on DEI statements is a practice of writing wherein authors provide some
level of personal reflections about their efforts to improve diversity, promote equity,
or create inclusive environments. This social practice draws on two genres of writing
practice: autobiography and narrative. Authors are encouraged to reflect on their own
experiences (autobiography) and write in a story format (narrative), rather than taking
a more objective stance and providing evidence. Self-reporting on DEI related activ-
ities occurs in a variety of venues within STEM higher education. Faculty members
self-report when applying to jobs, moving through the tenure pathway, and most impor-
tantly—when applying for research funding. We believe there are two important influ-
ences from the social practice onto this corpus of diversity statements.
First, we note that the contributions listed in our data corpus bare resemblance to
portions of documents requested in STEM higher education research funding agen-
cies––namely, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Founda-
tion (NSF). When applying for NIH funding, faculty are asked to submit a “Biographi-
cal Sketch” which includes a personal statement. In this statement, faculty are asked to
describe their qualifications and experience for their role in a project they are proposing
(https://​grants.​nih.​gov/​grants/​forms/​biosk​etch.​htm). When drafting their personal state-
ment, Principal Investigators (PI) are also advised to list the students and postdoctoral
fellows they have mentored and are currently mentoring, including whether these train-
ees belong to a marginalized community (personal communication with university grant
office). This ostensibly communicates to funders that the PI is contributing to broaden-
ing participation efforts by welcoming people from minoritized or marginalized back-
grounds into their labs.
However, listing marginalized identities does little to show how PIs support these
mentees or remove barriers for them, as many marginalized students could be succeed-
ing despite their PI and not because of them (McGee, 2020). Our data showed several
instances of this practice of listing mentees’ identities (as seen in LS-06). Further, other
types of contributions listed in our data align with common efforts proposed under the
Broader Impact Criterion (BIC), required in NSF grant proposals. Namely, engaging
in outreach activities with K-12 students to disseminate research results and practices
in ways that increase youth’s knowledge base, interest, or motivation in STEM. When
the NSF funds proposals with these proposed broader impacts, they allow scientists to
believe that these types of add-on activities are enough, without considering that these
practices may be deficit-oriented and work to maintain the status quo (Woodson & Bou-
tilier, 2022). If these types of contributions are considered to be enough to get millions
of dollars in research funding, it stands to reason that that busy faculty members would
think that it is also good enough to use in a yearly evaluation deemed to be “window
dressing.”
Second, the genres involved in the social practice of self-reporting (i.e., autobiog-
raphy and narrative) tend to privilege first-person perspectives and memory-based
accounts. Authors write about issues in STEM higher education they have witnessed or
experienced. This likely explains the emphasis, across the statements, on authors’ first-
hand perspective witnessing and solving issues related to diversity and climate. Many
of the diversity statements specified the instructor (i.e., wrote about the instructor’s own
perspective) and generalized students (i.e., wrote about students as a broad group of

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 33 of 39 6

social actors). While most authors only engaged in discussions about remedies to diver-
sity issues, even those authors who did discuss diversity-problems and diversity-causes
tended to focus on ‘near’ problems/causes. That is, the authors discuss problems and
causes that they themselves could witness and explain; rather than, problems and causes
that originate from the broader design of social institutions. While autobiographical and
narrative self-reflection is important for DEI statements, we argue that it must be paired
with other genres of writing, particularly more expository forms.

Explaining How Social Structure(s) Influenced the Corpus

These texts are contained within a variety of social structures. Most near to the situation,
these diversity statements were written for a large CS, within a major research and teach-
ing university, in the United States Southwest. At a slightly higher altitude, these diversity
statements were written during a contentious time in higher education where the notion
inequity itself is being debated as worthy of attention; or worse yet, as a real problem to be
solved. Finally, at an even higher altitude, these diversity statements were written during
a historic period (1970s to present) in American political life in which neoliberal govern-
ing practices have reigned supreme (Harvey, 2007). While each of these social structures
constrain the diversity statements, we focus our explanatory efforts on an enduring social
structure: racial and gender ideologies.
As we explained earlier, ideologies are the “mental frameworks…which different
classes and social groups deploy in other to make sense of, define, figure out, and render
intelligible the way society works” (Hall, 1996, p. 26). Racial and gender ideologies are,
therefore, the systems of representations that people draw on to make sense of race, gender,
and the importance of these identities in social life. Most notable across diversity state-
ments was a particular ideology which Bonilla-Silva (2014) refers to as colorblind racial
ideology (Russo-Tait, 2022). In this manuscript, and following the recommendations of
Annamma et al. (2017), we will refer to this ideology instead as color-evasive. We briefly
describe the color-evasive racial ideology, extend the color-evasive racial ideology to the
social identities of gender and sexuality, and discuss how we saw this ideology permeate
the corpus of statements.
Color-evasive racial ideology is a system of beliefs, prominent in the post-segregation
United States, which understands racial identity to no longer be of importance in determin-
ing the quality of a person’s life. Rather, the color-evasive racial ideology believes that peo-
ple’s hard work determines the life outcomes (e.g., meritocracy). Bonilla-Silva (2014) out-
lines four frames of color-evasive racial ideology. First, racial ideology relies on abstract
liberalism: a belief that equal rights, equality of treatment, and economic freedom will
produce the best conditions of society––and differential treatment, even to redress oppres-
sion, is discrimination. Second, any differences that may occur among racial groups is nat-
uralized—or explained as a property of the group, and not of the system surrounding the
group. Third, cultural racism argues that any differences amongst racial groups is largely
the product of certain cultures having more successful values, norms, and practices and
other cultures having less successful values, norms, and practices. Fourth, color-evasivera-
cial ideologies tend to minimize racism as an explanatory factor for any racial disparities in
social life. Taken together, the four frames of color-evasive ideology are used to deny that
inequity issues in social life are the result of explicit racism—but rather, are the product of
other social processes. We believe color-evasive ideologies can easily be extended to other

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 34 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

social identities, such as gender, sexuality, and class–– an identity neutral ideology that is
particularly salient in STEM spaces (Leyva, et al., 2022a, 2022b).
Across the corpus of diversity statements, we saw countless mentions of social identi-
ties relevant to the prompt. Most prominent across the text were discussions about (binary)
gender identity. Less frequent were discussions about racial identity; although, these dis-
cussions often drew on more vague terminology such as ‘underrepresented minority’ or
‘underprivileged groups.’ In a few cases, we saw references to sexuality-based identities
or nationality-based identities. Regardless of the social identities discussed, we saw two
key similarities to the color-evasive (and identity neutral) ideology: First, authors focused
on marginalized social identities rather than dominant social identities. This means that
authors discussed women in STEM rather than men in STEM, Black STEM students rather
than White STEM students, and Queer/LGBT students rather than straight students. The
overemphasis on addressing perceived deficiencies of individual students who are part of
communities experiencing an inequity is a hallmark of the contemporary and neoliberal
racial ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Solórzano, 2001). This discursive strategy centers
the discussion on those who are underperforming or not present; rather than, those who
are overperforming and overly present due to systemic advantages. Second, when authors
do mention social identities which need ‘extra treatment’, they do not explain why these
social identities may need such treatment. The connection between particular social groups
and undesirable conditions is never explored in full. While one could interpret this find-
ing as a product of the prompt given in the social event (i.e., request for statement), we
argue that faculty members could also have discussed contributing to climate and diver-
sity by addressing the deficient dominant culture, rather than fixing supposedly deficient
students. That is, they could be addressing climate and diversity by asking why is it that
women, People of Color, and Queer students (and others), feel uncomfortable, underper-
form, need mentoring, etc.? Who is making these individuals feel uncomfortable? Why
are other social identity groups over performing or not in need of mentorship? But they
are not. Rather, these issues are naturalized as a property of the marginalized group them-
selves, not of the climate and culture or STEM. The color-evasive racial (as well as gender-
evasive and sexuality-evasive) ideologies prevent this question from being meaningfully
discussed. This ideology is still incredibly pervasive in American culture and STEM higher
education is no exception.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first work that explores STEM faculty DEI statements through
critical discourse analysis. Through the lens of CDA, it becomes easier to notice how
STEM faculty are left to draw from identity-evasive hegemonic narratives that pathologize
students from non-dominant backgrounds and to position themselves as saviours, while at
the same time absolving themselves from responsibility to disrupt systems. The lack of
reflective prompts that scaffold a reflection about the causes of inequities and their systemic
nature (including how faculty’s own positionalities may preclude them from identifying
these issues), led faculty to share well-meaning but problematic narratives. Specifically,
their efforts to contribute to diversity and climate not only positioned people from margin-
alized backgrounds as deficient, but it also naturalized these deficiencies as an inherent part
of a subset of students. Therefore, these findings show how well-meaning people can enact
ideologies that not only perpetuate stereotypes and inequities, but reify them. Further,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 35 of 39 6

while some of the actions described might have helped individual students, they do nothing
to challenge the status quo for marginalized communities (Philip & Azevedo, 2017).
Our findings shed light on how a college’s request for diversity statements from current
faculty members fell short in obtaining responses that indicate a critical reflection of sys-
tems of power and privilege in STEM. Consequently, contributions to DEI (i.e., remedies)
were situated almost exclusively at the micro-level (the intrapersonal and interpersonal).
Few statements identified the causes of DEI problems, and DEI problems themselves were
not explicitly named but instead implied by the remedies used to “contribute to diversity
and climate” issues. Even the most thoughtful statements that demonstrated some sustained
self-reflection about faculty’s roles in contributing to diversity and climate lacked a causal
analysis and ultimately positioned students from marginalized backgrounds as the prob-
lem to be fixed––and faculty as responsible for doing the fixing. In all, while well-mean-
ing, most statements in our sample did not demonstrate the critical reflection necessary
to engage in contributions that address systemic issues related to diversity and climate or
DEI.
We argue that these statements are problematic due to the lack of guidance and sup-
port for faculty. STEM faculty are not formally trained in issues of equity, let alone their
causes and potential remedies. Furthermore, diversity initiatives across science funding
agencies and institutions of higher education have for decades centered the social identities
of marginalized students (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, disability) as opposed to systems
of oppression that target those identities and create unjust barriers for people from those
backgrounds in STEM fields (e.g., racism, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism). In a review
of the past 30 years of the literature on faculty review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) Schi-
manski and Alperin, (2018) described the evolution of these evaluation procedures––from
expecting faculty to excel in either research, teaching or service in the 1980s, to requir-
ing that they demonstrate excellence in all these areas from the 2000s on. This change
has led to contradictions between faculty members’ day-to-day job expectations that often
require teaching, service, and several administrative duties, with the heavy weight placed
in research output in RPT evaluations. STEM faculty frequently report on the dissonance
between the stated institutional commitment to teaching and the actual reward structures
that prioritize research accomplishments (Schimanski & Alperin, 2018). Further, O’Meara
and colleagues (2011) argue that an overemphasis on research publications can marginalize
faculty whose strengths lie in teaching and service.
This incongruence then leads to “an ineffective reward system which makes doing the
prosocial action … bad for the individual because it less efficiently achieves high impact
work and thus promotion” Buttliere, 2014, p.1, as cited in Schimanski & Alperin, 2018).
That is, the current system presents a barrier that keeps faculty from being able to focus on
improving their teaching or contributing to service. Adding DEI contributions to service,
teaching, and research is essential, especially in STEM. As many scholars point out, diver-
sity in STEM leads to innovation in areas of tremendous importance in society (McGee,
2021). Having a holistic understanding of how DEI permeates all facets of faculty labor
would support in the diversification of STEM in meaningful and sustainable ways, as it
would address deficient cultures and systems, not students. However, in order to reach this
goal, current and future faculty will need support in developing their critical consciousness
to engage in authentic and meaningful praxis that individually and collectively disrupt sys-
tems (Freire, 1968).
Therefore, we argue that, for DEI statements to be truly fruitful, they should have some
degree of separation from the promotion and pay evaluation systems. Faculty members
must be allowed to reflect on where they are falling short, misconceptions they have about

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 36 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

DEI, and/or to ask questions they have about DEI issues. Furthermore, faculty members
must be allowed to deeply reflect and offer self-critiques, without the consequence of a
missed promotion or pay-increase. This is not to say that rewards for faculty members who
engage in DEI work should not exist, but rather, we should be intentional about when a
reward or consequence might support or hinder critical reflection and action, or foster per-
formative allyship that can be harmful to students.
Furthermore, funding institutions could continue to expand their messaging around
what constitutes “broader impacts”. While NSF and NIH have clearly led the way in efforts
to broaden participation and have accomplished much in the last century (James & Singer,
2016; Valantine et al., 2016) it is important that they continue to evolve their messages and
requirements in ways that incentivize academic researchers to move beyond diversifying
the pipeline via deficit-oriented strategies, towards contributions that disrupt and dismantle
systems level inequities and injustices.

Implications for Research and Practice

As the extant research details, for DEI statements to be truly impactful, they must be sup-
ported by clear guidelines, genuine institutional commitment, and a culture that values and
understands the importance of diversity and inclusion in academia, beyond performative
“check-box” actions that prioritize appearance over substantive change (Ahmed, 2020;
Bensimon et al., 2018; Stewart & Valian, 2018).
As we stated in the beginning of the manuscript, we believe that DEI statements could
be seen as a tool that supports faculty to unlearn problematic narratives, critically reflect on
their positionalities and systemic injustices, and ultimately engage in equitable practices at
all levels of the system. Using our findings, we briefly propose some specific aims and rec-
ommendations for departments and administrators to consider to improve the use of DEI
statements as tools for critical self-reflection and action in ways that disrupt barriers for
marginalized students (Table 5). These recommendations are necessarily broad due to how
contextual factors will differ between institutions and states. They are merely a start in the
conversation of how to best use DEI statements as tools for critical reflection and action.

Table 5  Recommendations for how use DEI statements as critical tools for reflection
Aim Recommendation

To support faculty in engaging in critical self-reflec- Construct a prompt which asks faculty to reflect
tion and promote intellectual humility and empathy on how their social positionalities inform their
experiences, perspectives and assumptions about
teaching and learning
To support faculty in diving deep into one DEI issue Construct a prompt which asks faculty to deeply
rather than a surface discussion reflect on a DEI issue they are passionate or inter-
ested in learning more about
To provide opportunities for exploring systemic Ask faculty to explain a DEI issue from multiple
issues across levels (micro-meso-macro) angles (intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional,
systemic)
To utilize DEI statements as a formative assessment Use statements to design targeted Professional
used to create opportunities for further reflection, Development and Support groups for faculty based
un/learning, and growth on interests and needs. Create judgement-free
“brave spaces” for faculty to ask questions and
address common misconceptions

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 37 of 39 6

In terms of research implications, we invite colleagues to help us to reimagine how DEI

statements can be used, beyond a “window dressing” or check box tool for hiring and com-
pliance. Colleagues in states that are not under the same legislative constraints in relation
to DEIJ efforts should consider testing our recommendations––or designing their own–– in
order to respond to this need.
Acknowledgements We are grateful for the faculty members who volunteered their diversity statements for
our analysis. Without these individuals, we would not be able to thoughtfully critique and reimagine systems
which are designed to make life and learning more equitable.

Data availability Due to IRB and privacy considerations, the data are not available.

Declarations
Conflict of interests We report no conflict of interests in conducting this study or writing this manuscript.

References
Ahmed, S (2020). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.
Associated Press. (2023, June 9). Words like ‘diversity,’ inclusion’ to be removed from Georgia teaching
program standards. Associated Press. https://​apnews.​com/​artic​le/​georg​ia-​educa​tion-​stand​ards-​diver​
sity-​equity-​inclu​sion-​12f00​9205e​b5fef​5ae5d​d135c​8fde0​dd.
Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/
ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race, Eth-
nicity, and Education, 20(2), 147–162.
Battey, D., & Leyva, L. A. (2016). A framework for understanding whiteness in mathematics education.
Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21423/​jume-​v9i2a​294
Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. Verso.
Bloom, W., Curran, M., & Brint, S. (2020). Interdisciplinary cluster hiring initiatives in U. S. research uni-
versities: More straw than bricks? The Journal of Higher Education, 91(5), 755–780.
Bonilla-Silva E. (2014). Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequal-
ity in America (Fourth ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bryant, J. & Appleby, C. (2023, March 22). These states’ anti-DEI legislation may impact higher education.
Best Colleges. https://​www.​bestc​olleg​es.​com/​news/​anti-​dei-​legis​lation-​track​er/.
Corrington, A., Fa-Jaji, N. M., Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Stewart, D., & Alao, T. (2022). The impact of
organizational statements of support for the Black community in the wake of a racial mega-threat on
organizational attraction and revenue. Human Resource Management, 61, 699–722.
Cosgriff-Hernandez, E. M., Aguado, B. A., Akpa, B., Coloyan Fleming, G., Moore, E., Porras, A. M.,
Boyle, P. M., Chan, D. D., Chesler, N., Christman, K. L., Desai, T. A., Harley, B. A. C., Hudalla,
G. A., Killian, M. L., Maisel, K., Maitland, K. C., Peyton, S. R., Pruitt, B. L., Stabenfeldt, S. E., …
Bowden, A. K. (2023). Equitable hiring strategies towards a diversified faculty. Nature: Biomedical
Engineering, 7, 961–968.
Douifi, M. (2018). Language and the complex of ideology: A socio-cognitive study of warfare discourse in
Britain. Springer.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology. Verso.
Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1),
163–173.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research ­(1st ed.) Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universi-
ties. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168.
Ficht, L. S., & Levashina, J. (2023). Should DEI statements be included in faculty selection? Exploring
legal, diversity, and validity issues. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 31, 212–224.
Foste, Z., Duran, A., & Hooten, Z. (2023). Articulating diversity on campus: A critical discourse analysis of
diversity statements at historically white institutions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(5),
575–588.
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 6 Page 38 of 39 Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6

Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In D. Morley & K. Chen (Eds.),
Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (pp. 25–46). Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2020). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial
perspective. In C. McCann, S. Kim, & E. Ergun (Eds.), Feminist Theory Reader (pp. 303–310).
Routledge.
Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and “strong objectivity.” Social
Research, 59(3), 567–887.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hasenbalg, C., & Huntington, S. (1982). Brazilian racial democracy: Reality or myth? Humboldt Jour-
nal of Social Relations, 10, 129–142.
James, S. M., & Singer, S. R. (2016). From the NSF: The National Science Foundation’s investments in
broadening participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education through
research and capacity building. CBE Life Sciences Education., 15(3), fe7.
Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Poli-
tics of Education, 18(3), 329–342.
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2014). The discourse reader (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Leyva, L. A., Amman, K., Wolf McMichael, E. A., Khan, N., & Igbinosun, J. (2022b). Support for all?
Confronting racism and patriarchy to promote equitable learning opportunities in undergraduate
calculus instruction. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education,
8, 339–364.
Leyva, L. A., McNeill, R. T., & Duran, A. (2022). A queer of color challenge to neutrality in under-
graduate STEM pedagogy as a White, cisheteropatriarchal space. Journal of Women and Minorities
in Science and Engineering, 28(2), 79–94.
Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the
adoption of student centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International
Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–21.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Forrest Cataldi, E.,
and Bullock Mann, F. (2018). The Condition of Education 2018 (NCES 2018–144). U.S. Depart-
ment of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date]
from https://​nces.​ed.​gov/​pubse​arch/​pubsi​nfo. asp?pubid=2018144.
McGee, E. O. (2021). Black, brown, bruised: How racialized STEM education stifles innovation. Har-
vard Education Press.
McGee, K. (2023, May 27). Texas lawmakers find consensus on bill banning diversity, equity, and inclu-
sion offices in public universities. The Texas Tribune. https://​www.​texas​tribu​ne.​org/​2023/​05/​27/​
texas-​unive​rsity-​diver​sity-​equity-​inclu​sion-​dei-​bill-​confe​rence/.
McGee, E. O. (2020). Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational
Researcher, 49(9), 633–644.
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 of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023). Advancing antiracism, diversity,
equity, and inclusion in STEMM organizations: Beyond broadening participation. The National
Academies Press.
O’Meara, K. (2011). Inside the panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. Higher Education:
Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, 161–220.
Ortner, D. M. (2021). In the name of diversity: Why mandatory diversity statements violate the first amend-
ment and reduce intellectual diversity in academia. Catholic University Law Review, 70, 515–597.
Paul, J. D., & Maranto, R. (2023). Elite schools lead: An empirical examination of diversity require-
ments in higher education job markets. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 314–328.
Philip, T. M. (2011). An “ideology in pieces” approach to studying change in teachers’ sensemaking
about race, racism, and racial justice. Cognition and Instruction, 29(3), 297–329.
Philip, T. M., Gupta, A., Elby, A., & Turpen, C. (2018). Why ideology matters for learning: A case of
ideological convergence in an engineering ethics classroom discussion on drone warfare. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 183–223.
Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N. (2019). STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary
analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. CBE—Life Sci-
ences Education, 18(4), 1–14.
Russo‐Tait, T. (2022). Color‐blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial/
ethnic underrepresentation in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(10), 1822–1852.
Russo‐Tait, T. (2023). Science faculty conceptions of equity and their association to teaching practices.
Science Education, 107(2), 427–458.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Research in Higher Education (2025) 66:6 Page 39 of 39 6

Sayer, A. (1997). Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 27(4), 473–488.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. Sage.
Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure
processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research, 7, 1605.
Sherard, M. K., & Azevedo, F. S. (2023). A method for the critical analysis of science communication texts.
International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 13(4), 328–344.
Soucek, B. (2022b). How to protect DEI requirements from legal peril. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://​www.​chron​icle.​com/​artic​le/​how-​to-​prote​ct-​dei-​requi​remen​ts-​from-​legal-​peril.
Soucek, B. (2022a). Diversity statements. UC Davis Law Review 55, no. 4 (April 2022): 1989–2062.
Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity and excellence. MIT Press.
Sylvester, C. Y. C., Sánchez-Parkinson, L., Yettaw, M., & Chavous, T. (2019). The promise of diversity
statements: Insights and a framework developed from faculty applications. NCID Currents. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3998/​curre​nts.​17387​731.​0001.​112
Therborn, G. (2013). The Killing Fields of Inequality. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Valantine, H. A., Lund, P. K., & Gammie, A. E. (2016). From the NIH: A systems approach to increasing
the diversity of the biomedical research workforce. CBE—Life Sciences Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1187/​cbe.​16-​03-​0138
Van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage.
van Leeuwen, T. (1991). Conjunctive structure in documentary film and television. Continuum, 5(1),
76–115.
van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: A synopsis. Discourse & Society,
4(2), 193–223.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard
(Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–104). Routledge.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse anlayis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1–33). Sage.
Wood, S. (2023, April 18). DEI bans at colleges: What students should know. U. S. News & World
Report. https://​www.​usnews.​com/​educa​tion/​best-​colle​ges/​artic​les/​dei-​bans-​at-​colle​ges-​what-​stude​
nts-​should-​know.
Woodson, T., & Boutilier, S. (2022). Impacts for whom? Assessing inequalities in NSF-funded broader
impacts using the inclusion-immediacy criterion. Science and Public Policy, 49(2), 168–178.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com